More 1989 stuff - *If it bores you, don't look!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Kaptin_X, superficially your essay may appear plausible to those readers who were not DIRECTLY involved in, and familiar with our dispute - as you have now revealed yourself to also have been a participant, rather than one of Ansett's company psychologists.
There are some statements you have made - the skeleton of your argument - that are flawed, but upon which you appear to hang the body of YOUR argument!
If I may, I'll take some of these statements of your's, Kaptin_X, that are fallacious, and counter them with the CORRECT story;
{ii} You said,"The 29.47% was with NO tradeoffs (non-negotiable)...Yes, he did say it (was negotiable), but only after the whole show was lost.".
The REALITY is, on August 17th, 1989, ( a FULL WEEK PRIOR to our resignations) Brian McCarthy stated publically, "Our sole intention is to sit down across the table with our employers, negotiate an agreement, shake hands and know that the money will be in our pockets at the end of the month!" [refer to Chapter 2, p22, "Sky Pirates"]
I don't believe that even YOU, Kaptin_X would have thought "the whole show was lost" when we hadn't even started our 9-5 campaign...that commenced on August 18!
(ii) You said""The Accord" was well and truly a part of the Australian industrial scene, and no pay rises outside the system were permitted unless accompanied by a corresponding increase in productivity.".
The TRUTH is pilots had VOLUNTARILY agreed to commit to "The Award" for a definitive period to see how WE fared during that time, with other groups of comparable income, and cost of living rises over the previous (5 year) period. Obviously we had fallen a long way behind, 21% in fact, making it patently clear that we were being DISADVANTAGED by volunteering to remain tied by "the Accord's" restrictions!
There was no law that stated the pilots (or ANY other workers) HAD to be a party to "The Accord" - however with Abeles as chief executive of Ansett airlines, and one of the architects of "The Accord" (set up as a result of the 1983 Economic Summit held in Canberra, which Abeles attended at Hawke's invitation) - Abeles, Hawke and Co tried to force us to stay within its guidelines.
In fact, pay rises OUTSIDE "The Accord" did NOT have to be justified to those who were not signatories!
(iii) You said, "The resignations....We did not voluntarily resign. We were coerced into doing so, and told that they wouldn't be used"
Kaptin_X, I was at the meeting when the pilots were called in. The TRUTH is NO-ONE was "co-erced" into signing the resignations - comment has even been made as to the apparent light heartedness as people penned their signatures to the papers. Personally, I didn't sign until the following day, as did several others. Admittedly we were told that the resignations would only be used in dire circumstances, and FORTUNATELY for us, the resignations HAD to be used shortly afterwards to save our financial @rses! I understand that it may have been the ACTU that saw the way future industrial battles might be waged against THEM, had Abeles and Co. gone ahead with the court action against the 70-something individuals for "unspecified damages", and persuaded the airlines to not pursue that course. Without a doubt the resignations were the only LEGAL way pilots would be protected from being sued by their employer - INDUSTRIALLY, it would have been a brave leader who allowed his members to have these writs issued on as many as the airlines could find culpable, with NO guarantee that the pilots sued would not have been "taken to the cleaners".
Possibly, Kaptin_X, you were NOT issued with a writ, however I personally witnessed pilots who had been with both Ansett and TAA for close to 30 years, and F/O's with less than 10 years service, visibly shaken by the prospect of losing EVERYTHING, because THEY had been served writs!
Eleven years down the track it's easy to look back and say "You should never have resigned, nothing happened to you anyway!". But at the time Hawke, Abeles, Strong and many others were baying for our blood.
But you DO remember that, don't you Kaptin_X!!
THAT is the TRUTH behind the resignations.
(iv) You said, "If any salaries impacted on the failure of AN, it would have been managers, FAs and loaders, all under productive and over paid groups of employees."
But have categorically DENIED it was NOT the pilots. In a nutshell, Kaptin_K, you have pointed the finger at EVERYONE ELSE, yet it is an undisputed, widely known FACT that post-dispute pilots ie. scabs pillaged Ansett's coffers (with their blessing!!) far in excess of the previous pilots, and IF your accusations are correct, it was probably the enormous salaries that the others saw YOU being rewarded with, to take it as a green light for THEM to go for broke, as well.
As far as $200 ph (is that per hour?) for Ansett Captains in the future, I must be honest and say that I laughed when I read it. I believe the reality will be a fixed monthly salary (probably in the $120-130k p.a. gross) and a MINIMUM of 80-85 hours per month. For the sake of the younger, non-scabs I sincerely hope they are able to obtain better, but from the perspective of the new owner of an airline that has once succumbed because the staff were overpaid and underworked (a precis of P.M. John Howard's summation of why Ansett collapsed), I believe the guys are dreaming.
Time alone will tell!
Sui Generis!
There are some statements you have made - the skeleton of your argument - that are flawed, but upon which you appear to hang the body of YOUR argument!
If I may, I'll take some of these statements of your's, Kaptin_X, that are fallacious, and counter them with the CORRECT story;
{ii} You said,"The 29.47% was with NO tradeoffs (non-negotiable)...Yes, he did say it (was negotiable), but only after the whole show was lost.".
The REALITY is, on August 17th, 1989, ( a FULL WEEK PRIOR to our resignations) Brian McCarthy stated publically, "Our sole intention is to sit down across the table with our employers, negotiate an agreement, shake hands and know that the money will be in our pockets at the end of the month!" [refer to Chapter 2, p22, "Sky Pirates"]
I don't believe that even YOU, Kaptin_X would have thought "the whole show was lost" when we hadn't even started our 9-5 campaign...that commenced on August 18!
(ii) You said""The Accord" was well and truly a part of the Australian industrial scene, and no pay rises outside the system were permitted unless accompanied by a corresponding increase in productivity.".
The TRUTH is pilots had VOLUNTARILY agreed to commit to "The Award" for a definitive period to see how WE fared during that time, with other groups of comparable income, and cost of living rises over the previous (5 year) period. Obviously we had fallen a long way behind, 21% in fact, making it patently clear that we were being DISADVANTAGED by volunteering to remain tied by "the Accord's" restrictions!
There was no law that stated the pilots (or ANY other workers) HAD to be a party to "The Accord" - however with Abeles as chief executive of Ansett airlines, and one of the architects of "The Accord" (set up as a result of the 1983 Economic Summit held in Canberra, which Abeles attended at Hawke's invitation) - Abeles, Hawke and Co tried to force us to stay within its guidelines.
In fact, pay rises OUTSIDE "The Accord" did NOT have to be justified to those who were not signatories!
(iii) You said, "The resignations....We did not voluntarily resign. We were coerced into doing so, and told that they wouldn't be used"
Kaptin_X, I was at the meeting when the pilots were called in. The TRUTH is NO-ONE was "co-erced" into signing the resignations - comment has even been made as to the apparent light heartedness as people penned their signatures to the papers. Personally, I didn't sign until the following day, as did several others. Admittedly we were told that the resignations would only be used in dire circumstances, and FORTUNATELY for us, the resignations HAD to be used shortly afterwards to save our financial @rses! I understand that it may have been the ACTU that saw the way future industrial battles might be waged against THEM, had Abeles and Co. gone ahead with the court action against the 70-something individuals for "unspecified damages", and persuaded the airlines to not pursue that course. Without a doubt the resignations were the only LEGAL way pilots would be protected from being sued by their employer - INDUSTRIALLY, it would have been a brave leader who allowed his members to have these writs issued on as many as the airlines could find culpable, with NO guarantee that the pilots sued would not have been "taken to the cleaners".
Possibly, Kaptin_X, you were NOT issued with a writ, however I personally witnessed pilots who had been with both Ansett and TAA for close to 30 years, and F/O's with less than 10 years service, visibly shaken by the prospect of losing EVERYTHING, because THEY had been served writs!
Eleven years down the track it's easy to look back and say "You should never have resigned, nothing happened to you anyway!". But at the time Hawke, Abeles, Strong and many others were baying for our blood.
But you DO remember that, don't you Kaptin_X!!
THAT is the TRUTH behind the resignations.
(iv) You said, "If any salaries impacted on the failure of AN, it would have been managers, FAs and loaders, all under productive and over paid groups of employees."
But have categorically DENIED it was NOT the pilots. In a nutshell, Kaptin_K, you have pointed the finger at EVERYONE ELSE, yet it is an undisputed, widely known FACT that post-dispute pilots ie. scabs pillaged Ansett's coffers (with their blessing!!) far in excess of the previous pilots, and IF your accusations are correct, it was probably the enormous salaries that the others saw YOU being rewarded with, to take it as a green light for THEM to go for broke, as well.
As far as $200 ph (is that per hour?) for Ansett Captains in the future, I must be honest and say that I laughed when I read it. I believe the reality will be a fixed monthly salary (probably in the $120-130k p.a. gross) and a MINIMUM of 80-85 hours per month. For the sake of the younger, non-scabs I sincerely hope they are able to obtain better, but from the perspective of the new owner of an airline that has once succumbed because the staff were overpaid and underworked (a precis of P.M. John Howard's summation of why Ansett collapsed), I believe the guys are dreaming.
Time alone will tell!
Sui Generis!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slasher:Well goodluck to you.I hope it lasts as long as possible for you.Are any 737
drivers arond the world paid more?-sounds like you have the top job.
Kaptin M:I'll give you the tip mate Hawke,and
Ables weren't the only ones baying for your blood.You could include other airline workers, tourists,laid off hotel workers,the
travelling public.I got all choked up when i
read about 30 year TAA/AN pilots being "visibly shaken" ,the poor babies.What about
the numerous businesses that went belly up,did they get "visibly shaken" about them.The 89ers didn't give a flying f**k about anybody but themselves, and everybody knew that.
What airline management wouldn't seize the
chance to p#ss off,such a difficult bunch of arrogant prima donnas?
drivers arond the world paid more?-sounds like you have the top job.
Kaptin M:I'll give you the tip mate Hawke,and
Ables weren't the only ones baying for your blood.You could include other airline workers, tourists,laid off hotel workers,the
travelling public.I got all choked up when i
read about 30 year TAA/AN pilots being "visibly shaken" ,the poor babies.What about
the numerous businesses that went belly up,did they get "visibly shaken" about them.The 89ers didn't give a flying f**k about anybody but themselves, and everybody knew that.
What airline management wouldn't seize the
chance to p#ss off,such a difficult bunch of arrogant prima donnas?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
freo 2002 - you are no better at winding people up now as you were when you were trying to get pilots to believe you would fly for free. I picked you for a fraud last year and you're back - 10 points for persistance.
As for Kaptin M,Slasher and Balthazar! I don't believe you guys responding to such garbage. If freo 2002 has a master's degree in anything other than Dale Carnegy's "Come in Spinner" society for the gullible, I shall drop my pants in the public bar at the Brekky Creek Hotel on a Friday night!
Keep the Faith :]
As for Kaptin M,Slasher and Balthazar! I don't believe you guys responding to such garbage. If freo 2002 has a master's degree in anything other than Dale Carnegy's "Come in Spinner" society for the gullible, I shall drop my pants in the public bar at the Brekky Creek Hotel on a Friday night!
Keep the Faith :]
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
You need to research some FACTS freo....facts such as: It was THE AIRLINES that shut down all operations.
And the stupid remark,
puts YOU on a par with Hawke, who wanted so much to "p#ss us off", that he did it regardless of the cost to
Oh and by the way, a qualified professional such as yourself should invest in a grammar, syntax and spelling course, [b]freeo[/i]....never know, you might grow up to be a pilot one day - but I doubt it!
You envious little man
And the stupid remark,
What airline management wouldn't seize the chance to p#ss off,such a difficult bunch of arrogant prima donnas?
"other airline workers, tourists,laid off hotel workers,the travelling public....What about the numerous businesses that went belly up"
You envious little man
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Kap & other 89ers,
Actually Kap i'm a S/O at QF,who is it you
actually work for?(do you guys actually have jobs).Seems pretty obvious who
the envious ones are.I have a job in my own country ,just because you blew it ,there is no need to get personal.You also seem very
envious that i may have skills/qualifications
outside aviation.Yes well some of us did actually get degrees,&work in the real world before flying.
I notice you continue your habit of playing the man,instead of addressing any of
the issues i raised(but you do that to everyone who disagrees with you).Also a lot
of your reasoning/logic is at a very simplistic,one dimenional ,almost a naive level.Eg:you say you had no choice to resign
because of writs,but didn't you have some
concept that a legal action can take many twists/turns after it begins-it is very difficult to predict a final result.In simple
terms Kap it means that receiving a writ doesn't necesarily equate to losing money(read last sentence again 5* slowly).
I'll stick to my guns on this one.I can recollect being in North Qld in late 89,without doubt the domestic pilots were viewed with absolute hatred by virtually everyone.You guys were happy to sh#t on your
fellow citizens,you didn't care how many others you affected,and all the other boys and girls knew it.
$80K for 400hrs F/O-that's tough!!
You sound stressed Kap, are there
some probs with your contract?
Whiskery:Not a windup at all ,just expressing an opinion ,not everyone is phased
or persuaded by a typical 89ers retort(ie
ersonal abuse).You better put on a clean pair of jocks(this normally means ones that you haven't worn for more than a 24 hour period) ,and loosen your top button.
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: freemantle2002 ]
Actually Kap i'm a S/O at QF,who is it you
actually work for?(do you guys actually have jobs).Seems pretty obvious who
the envious ones are.I have a job in my own country ,just because you blew it ,there is no need to get personal.You also seem very
envious that i may have skills/qualifications
outside aviation.Yes well some of us did actually get degrees,&work in the real world before flying.
I notice you continue your habit of playing the man,instead of addressing any of
the issues i raised(but you do that to everyone who disagrees with you).Also a lot
of your reasoning/logic is at a very simplistic,one dimenional ,almost a naive level.Eg:you say you had no choice to resign
because of writs,but didn't you have some
concept that a legal action can take many twists/turns after it begins-it is very difficult to predict a final result.In simple
terms Kap it means that receiving a writ doesn't necesarily equate to losing money(read last sentence again 5* slowly).
I'll stick to my guns on this one.I can recollect being in North Qld in late 89,without doubt the domestic pilots were viewed with absolute hatred by virtually everyone.You guys were happy to sh#t on your
fellow citizens,you didn't care how many others you affected,and all the other boys and girls knew it.
$80K for 400hrs F/O-that's tough!!
You sound stressed Kap, are there
some probs with your contract?
Whiskery:Not a windup at all ,just expressing an opinion ,not everyone is phased
or persuaded by a typical 89ers retort(ie
ersonal abuse).You better put on a clean pair of jocks(this normally means ones that you haven't worn for more than a 24 hour period) ,and loosen your top button.[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: freemantle2002 ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Page 69 - 3rd rock
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AHA! Free02 IS flying for free! A S/O at Quaintarse! You stupid boy Pike! - Er, Free02.
Now, old KX there - now we can just about identify who he is. Let's see, helped daft the scab contracts, flew B737's in '88, is a psychologist(laughs head off), now flies, or recently flew, B777's. Has to be a golden scab, the never resigned ones, who thought their bodily wastes did not exude an offensive aroma.
Boy - is this guy in serious trouble!
All that danger and he lives to tell the tale.
Now, old KX there - now we can just about identify who he is. Let's see, helped daft the scab contracts, flew B737's in '88, is a psychologist(laughs head off), now flies, or recently flew, B777's. Has to be a golden scab, the never resigned ones, who thought their bodily wastes did not exude an offensive aroma.
Boy - is this guy in serious trouble!
All that danger and he lives to tell the tale.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you were not there and not involved then your views are merely personally held opinions based on hearsay only."
Good advice GG, what exactly was your involvment back in 89, apart from floggin aeroplanes (sorry about that 421)
Good advice GG, what exactly was your involvment back in 89, apart from floggin aeroplanes (sorry about that 421)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents (and others) please. It seems to me there is a lot of unecessary angst here. I have a penchant for trying to simplify things to the point where I can understand them. I have deduced the following as facts.
1) Pre dispute there were X pilots employed by Ansett (the same applys to TN) These pilots worked on average p hours
2) Those pilots earned y dollars pa on average which factors out to z $ per hour
3) post dispute there were (x-a) pilots. These pilots because there were less of them worked p+q hours
4) (x-a) pilots worked for what has been argued as a lower rate per hour . Lets say (z-b)
Ansett had c hours of flying per year.
Pre dispute it cost them (x)(p)(z) $ total for c hours
Post dispute it cost Ansett (x-a)(p+q)(x-b)for c hours
You still with me, cos its totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that (x)(p)(z) equals (x-a)(p+q)(x-b) give or take a couple of mil.
What we end up with is NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE AIRLINES, between the heros and the pre dispute situation.
So what was the motivation for this unprecedented assault on an organised workforce. You work it out.
That then leads to the conclusion that there is group among us that saw that they could attain substantial benefits by rejoining, (or blowing in), but that because of "increased productivity" they would achieve that substantial gain at the expense of their brother's job. The bottom line of course is , that those said "gentlemen" choose the dollar and couldn't give a stuff about those whose job they effectively scuttled.
Yes the system was inefficient. (largely a company convenience problem)
Yes it was more efficient from a manpower point of view after the event.
No it did not benefit the airline financially
Yes it did contribute to the airlines eventual demise.
The road to salvation was to work hand in hand with a committed workforce, with a strong union. To work through any problems that they faced and devise effective strategies for the challenges that lay ahead(Look at South West). Unfortunately the likes of the fat man and turbo tie can't stand the thought of worker participation. They are after all the ruling ass (sorry that should have been class)
The thing so many forget, and those who weren't ther never knew, is that the initial claims, contained no monetary items. It was Abeles that forced the issue by insisting on industry wide negotiations. Because of the diverse nature of the organisation involved the only way to address that in the ambit stage was to lodge a blanket monetary claim.
At the end of the day there are those who can hold their hand on their heart and say they believe in what they did and be proud of standing with their brothers.
And then there are the others.
Kap M et al don't waste your time trying to convert or reason with the likes of FSU. The semantics regarding pay rates and what individuals could make etc, is an endless maze. Be proud and move on. But never forget.
Sui Genaris.
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Grange Guzzler ]
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Grange Guzzler ]
1) Pre dispute there were X pilots employed by Ansett (the same applys to TN) These pilots worked on average p hours
2) Those pilots earned y dollars pa on average which factors out to z $ per hour
3) post dispute there were (x-a) pilots. These pilots because there were less of them worked p+q hours
4) (x-a) pilots worked for what has been argued as a lower rate per hour . Lets say (z-b)
Ansett had c hours of flying per year.
Pre dispute it cost them (x)(p)(z) $ total for c hours
Post dispute it cost Ansett (x-a)(p+q)(x-b)for c hours
You still with me, cos its totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that (x)(p)(z) equals (x-a)(p+q)(x-b) give or take a couple of mil.
What we end up with is NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE AIRLINES, between the heros and the pre dispute situation.
So what was the motivation for this unprecedented assault on an organised workforce. You work it out.
That then leads to the conclusion that there is group among us that saw that they could attain substantial benefits by rejoining, (or blowing in), but that because of "increased productivity" they would achieve that substantial gain at the expense of their brother's job. The bottom line of course is , that those said "gentlemen" choose the dollar and couldn't give a stuff about those whose job they effectively scuttled.
Yes the system was inefficient. (largely a company convenience problem)
Yes it was more efficient from a manpower point of view after the event.
No it did not benefit the airline financially
Yes it did contribute to the airlines eventual demise.
The road to salvation was to work hand in hand with a committed workforce, with a strong union. To work through any problems that they faced and devise effective strategies for the challenges that lay ahead(Look at South West). Unfortunately the likes of the fat man and turbo tie can't stand the thought of worker participation. They are after all the ruling ass (sorry that should have been class)
The thing so many forget, and those who weren't ther never knew, is that the initial claims, contained no monetary items. It was Abeles that forced the issue by insisting on industry wide negotiations. Because of the diverse nature of the organisation involved the only way to address that in the ambit stage was to lodge a blanket monetary claim.
At the end of the day there are those who can hold their hand on their heart and say they believe in what they did and be proud of standing with their brothers.
And then there are the others.
Kap M et al don't waste your time trying to convert or reason with the likes of FSU. The semantics regarding pay rates and what individuals could make etc, is an endless maze. Be proud and move on. But never forget.
Sui Genaris.
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Grange Guzzler ]
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Grange Guzzler ]
short flights long nights
GG Thank you, I have been staying out of this, and you could have not said it better.
Never Give Up The Faith
Never Give Up The Faith
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question, asked in good faith previously and, as yet, unanswered: Why did AFAP persist with the 9-5 work to rule when it was (or should have been) known that this action would place Pilots at risk of civil action (unspecified damages) by the airlines? Wasn't this what placed the AFAP membership in the position where they had to resign to protect their assets? 
Way off base GG. The guys did not go back to earn more money. They went back because if they didn't, they, like you, wouldn't have been earning ANY money in Australia as they wouldn't have had a job.
The weakness in all your arguments is that you assume that you had a chance of winning the dispute.
Whether the action was necessary or not, any chance of going back to work on your old conditions was lost the moment you resigned.
The guys that went back did so because they new a lost cause when they saw one... If you stayed out because of principal (and not because of intimidation as I know was the case with a lot of people), good luck to you. But to stubornly maintain hate at people because they weren't willing to go down with you is pretty darn stupid.
The weakness in all your arguments is that you assume that you had a chance of winning the dispute.
Whether the action was necessary or not, any chance of going back to work on your old conditions was lost the moment you resigned.
The guys that went back did so because they new a lost cause when they saw one... If you stayed out because of principal (and not because of intimidation as I know was the case with a lot of people), good luck to you. But to stubornly maintain hate at people because they weren't willing to go down with you is pretty darn stupid.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sly'n Smiley,
The 9 - 5 was in essence a work to rule / go slow type of limited industrial action.
This sort of campaign had been part of the Australian industrial landscape before 1989 and has been since.
Your argument applies to all industrial action (there is no right to strike - implied or otherwise, in Australia) and begs the more important question as to why pilots were treated so differently.
Wizofoz,
The reason the cause was lost is simply that some broke ranks.
The "guys that went back" did so because of opportunism, greed or weakness. These human frailties are present in us all but on this occasion exhibited by only a few.
The argument is now going in circles and I would suggest that those with a genuine interest go back and read the relevant threads and listen to the ABC tape.
The 9 - 5 was in essence a work to rule / go slow type of limited industrial action.
This sort of campaign had been part of the Australian industrial landscape before 1989 and has been since.
Your argument applies to all industrial action (there is no right to strike - implied or otherwise, in Australia) and begs the more important question as to why pilots were treated so differently.
Wizofoz,
The reason the cause was lost is simply that some broke ranks.
The "guys that went back" did so because of opportunism, greed or weakness. These human frailties are present in us all but on this occasion exhibited by only a few.
The argument is now going in circles and I would suggest that those with a genuine interest go back and read the relevant threads and listen to the ABC tape.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Page 69 - 3rd rock
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizzo, you must be illiterate, or just plain stupid.
Either way, if you hold a licence, maybe you should surrender it.
Scabs scabbed because od one thing. Greed. If you believe FSU's claptrap about payrates, then forget it. There is little truth in his posts regarding pay. The end result remains in the question he was asked - what was on his GC at the end 89/90, if he was an early scab, or 90/91 if he hid before scabbing. He evaded the question. I'll bet it was a lot more than he pretends. Of course, we will never know what was on his GC, as he would be game to scan and present it.
You stupid boy Pike - er Wizzo.
Either way, if you hold a licence, maybe you should surrender it.
Scabs scabbed because od one thing. Greed. If you believe FSU's claptrap about payrates, then forget it. There is little truth in his posts regarding pay. The end result remains in the question he was asked - what was on his GC at the end 89/90, if he was an early scab, or 90/91 if he hid before scabbing. He evaded the question. I'll bet it was a lot more than he pretends. Of course, we will never know what was on his GC, as he would be game to scan and present it.
You stupid boy Pike - er Wizzo.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: baka beyond
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obadiah
'Toured' Antarctica in the '70s. The ship was the Nella Dan. Unfortunately it was sunk, if my memory serves me right, around '84 at of all places, Storm Bay (dragged the picks and foundered). Replaced by the Aurora Australis.
'Toured' Antarctica in the '70s. The ship was the Nella Dan. Unfortunately it was sunk, if my memory serves me right, around '84 at of all places, Storm Bay (dragged the picks and foundered). Replaced by the Aurora Australis.