Can Ansett pilots work in Australia?
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainschlonger,
Very very interesting post and, most of all, something intelligent concerning '89 for a change (been waiting for this for a loooong time).
And a bit of an eye opener as well, isn't it...?
Very very interesting post and, most of all, something intelligent concerning '89 for a change (been waiting for this for a loooong time).
And a bit of an eye opener as well, isn't it...?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Aus
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thank you Captainolonger. The standard of the industry is improving each day.
I too recall several stories. One "Cupid" that didn't make the standards after 18 months on the TN bus. He was then provided
with a course by " Skillshare" to improve his English language skills. Some research in your retirement might provide you with the real reason of his demise. Definately a very interesting story.
The other yarn was of the, one in 240, that did not make the grade in Malaysia. He was
back and recycled into Australia before he could fail sim a second time. ( Seatsniffer, we all Know!! )
Please do us all a favour and do not spend the next six years of your early retirement trying to rewrite history.
Get out there and stimulate the economy with that $1 million or chuck a barbee and free feed for old workmates.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Max Crit ]
I too recall several stories. One "Cupid" that didn't make the standards after 18 months on the TN bus. He was then provided
with a course by " Skillshare" to improve his English language skills. Some research in your retirement might provide you with the real reason of his demise. Definately a very interesting story.
The other yarn was of the, one in 240, that did not make the grade in Malaysia. He was
back and recycled into Australia before he could fail sim a second time. ( Seatsniffer, we all Know!! )
Please do us all a favour and do not spend the next six years of your early retirement trying to rewrite history.
Get out there and stimulate the economy with that $1 million or chuck a barbee and free feed for old workmates.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Max Crit ]
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why so many non-scabs made application to AN and TN was because the dole office (under the silver bodgys starve them out directive) said that theres jobs available with the airline. So applications were made so that a rejection letter could be obtained and produced to the dole office. 89ers then could get the dole and feed there familys.
Scabs are proven liars and will resort to same to justify there actions.
Scabs are proven liars and will resort to same to justify there actions.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainschlonger and Strobes-On,
You make very pertinent points but you are urinating into the wind if you think you can get the '89ers to confront reality.
There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??" is one of the most intriguing because it seems that there are many unanswered questions as to it's origin.
Perhaps the most significant question is when it was first formulated,ie well before the initiation of the dispute, and whether the AFAP regarded it as a knockout blow and didn't think the consequences through.
Certainly it's execution was a surprise to the members and the trap was sprung. Seems that the "Irish Generals" didn't seem to recognise that they had trapped their own members into an untenable position.
Any person who did not realise what a disastrous error this was in a very short time must have been on another planet. At one stroke all of the contractual structure built painstakingly by Dick Holt over 21 years from 1945 t0 1966 was obliterated. The enemy in the form of the predatory porcine plunderer, his feathered mate etc were handed a loaded gun. That was the end there and then of the seniority system which they hoped to cling to when they were reinstated. But you don't get reinstated if you resign. No industrial court can compel an employer to reinstate a worker who has resigned. This then meant that the slate was wiped clean and the employers could employ whoever in whatever order they desired.
This enabled them to now advertise for pilots and since the AFAP would not permit pilots to apply the employers were able to demonstrate that none were available in Australia and it was necessary to look for replacements from overseas. As well, the stated intention of some AFAP pilots to go overseas, and in fact quite a few actually doing so, made it all the more believable in the eyes of the general public. And of course we had the spectacle of AFAP pilots displacing pilots in GA whilst reserving their place in the airlines.
Another facet of the dispute was the arrogant assumption that other unions would lend support especially when you consider that there were plenty of union mates of the feathered one. How ridiculous for the pilots to ask refuellers for support when they had tankered fuel whenever the refuellers took industrial action. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Not only was this "strategy?" unbelievably stupid but it was launched at a time of the Northern Summer when there was loads of spare aircraft capacity available. This further aided the employers in their task of filling the gaps. There were plenty of highly qualified Australian and New Zealand pilots overseas who because of quaint recruitment policies in the AFAP airlines had been obliged to look elsewhere. They were only too willing to return and the resignations made it easier to justify this. Additionally there was a surplus of pilots in the US and Canada at the time. These pilots were also competing for jobs with 89ers who had chosen to leave early whilst reserving their place, in strict accordance with seniority, back home. So it was not difficult for people to spot a little inconsistency in that.
It has been stated often that if everyone had adhered to the AFAP's plan then they would ALL GET THEIR JOBS BACK!! THe FACT is that NONE would have got their jobs back and there would have been total replacement of the pilot body in Australian domestic airlines. So the pilots waited till mid 1990 when the AFAP said it was OK to apply....but there were practically no jobs left and seniority was a thing of the past. In the meantime the AFAP had been saying that the enemy could not find pilots and none were coming from overseas to Australia. A blatant lie! So you have to ask yourself what else did they lie about.
I have asked many questions surrounding this but there have never been any meaningful answers. There is a lot that has not been revealed about the AFAP thought processes leading up to the dispute and it is doubtful if a truthful answer will ever be forthcoming. It would be too painful. Rather
it has led to vituperative abuse and the usual thuggish threats. You can expect the same. And you are right schlonger. Although some did seek to gain from the debacle you had every right to reclaim a job to replace the one you should never have resigned from. Good Luck.
It would take volumes to investigate all the strings to this matter and I have a life and job away from the keyboard.
Expecting the usual.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
You make very pertinent points but you are urinating into the wind if you think you can get the '89ers to confront reality.
There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??" is one of the most intriguing because it seems that there are many unanswered questions as to it's origin.
Perhaps the most significant question is when it was first formulated,ie well before the initiation of the dispute, and whether the AFAP regarded it as a knockout blow and didn't think the consequences through.
Certainly it's execution was a surprise to the members and the trap was sprung. Seems that the "Irish Generals" didn't seem to recognise that they had trapped their own members into an untenable position.
Any person who did not realise what a disastrous error this was in a very short time must have been on another planet. At one stroke all of the contractual structure built painstakingly by Dick Holt over 21 years from 1945 t0 1966 was obliterated. The enemy in the form of the predatory porcine plunderer, his feathered mate etc were handed a loaded gun. That was the end there and then of the seniority system which they hoped to cling to when they were reinstated. But you don't get reinstated if you resign. No industrial court can compel an employer to reinstate a worker who has resigned. This then meant that the slate was wiped clean and the employers could employ whoever in whatever order they desired.
This enabled them to now advertise for pilots and since the AFAP would not permit pilots to apply the employers were able to demonstrate that none were available in Australia and it was necessary to look for replacements from overseas. As well, the stated intention of some AFAP pilots to go overseas, and in fact quite a few actually doing so, made it all the more believable in the eyes of the general public. And of course we had the spectacle of AFAP pilots displacing pilots in GA whilst reserving their place in the airlines.
Another facet of the dispute was the arrogant assumption that other unions would lend support especially when you consider that there were plenty of union mates of the feathered one. How ridiculous for the pilots to ask refuellers for support when they had tankered fuel whenever the refuellers took industrial action. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Not only was this "strategy?" unbelievably stupid but it was launched at a time of the Northern Summer when there was loads of spare aircraft capacity available. This further aided the employers in their task of filling the gaps. There were plenty of highly qualified Australian and New Zealand pilots overseas who because of quaint recruitment policies in the AFAP airlines had been obliged to look elsewhere. They were only too willing to return and the resignations made it easier to justify this. Additionally there was a surplus of pilots in the US and Canada at the time. These pilots were also competing for jobs with 89ers who had chosen to leave early whilst reserving their place, in strict accordance with seniority, back home. So it was not difficult for people to spot a little inconsistency in that.
It has been stated often that if everyone had adhered to the AFAP's plan then they would ALL GET THEIR JOBS BACK!! THe FACT is that NONE would have got their jobs back and there would have been total replacement of the pilot body in Australian domestic airlines. So the pilots waited till mid 1990 when the AFAP said it was OK to apply....but there were practically no jobs left and seniority was a thing of the past. In the meantime the AFAP had been saying that the enemy could not find pilots and none were coming from overseas to Australia. A blatant lie! So you have to ask yourself what else did they lie about.
I have asked many questions surrounding this but there have never been any meaningful answers. There is a lot that has not been revealed about the AFAP thought processes leading up to the dispute and it is doubtful if a truthful answer will ever be forthcoming. It would be too painful. Rather
it has led to vituperative abuse and the usual thuggish threats. You can expect the same. And you are right schlonger. Although some did seek to gain from the debacle you had every right to reclaim a job to replace the one you should never have resigned from. Good Luck.
It would take volumes to investigate all the strings to this matter and I have a life and job away from the keyboard.
Expecting the usual.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: From a suitcase
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(FSU – I haven’t read you post as I post this, but I can imagine.)
captainschlonger (your ‘handle’ says an awful lot about you, BTW, but let’s not go into that), you’ve obviously read George Orwell’ s’ excellent sci-fi book, “1984”, where ‘Big Brother’, the all-powerful government, employs a huge battery of clerks to continually re-write history to fit in with whatever the current government line is.
Your post is nothing short of mind boggling – some would say ‘quaint’ in its fantastic, inaccurate re-writing of history. But I suspect you know that already.
And Spud, if you really believe what captainschlonger wrote above, you’ve been sorely, gravely misinformed by men (sic) who’ve attempted for twelve years to defend the indefensible – ie, their actions in “taking back their jobs” – to a captive audience of First Officers. If those same First Officers should elect to continue in Aviation, should do themselves a huge favour and listen with an open mind to the other side of the story if its offered to them.
Just to pose a question here in regard to one of the many ‘points’ made by captainschlonger: if he knows of “…many who wanted to stay, but for varied reasons were rejected”, is he saying:
- That the company thought only 23% of their original pilot force were “acceptable” to them as employees post Dispute?
- That 77% of the AN pilot force, including the universally respected Chief Pilot, Captain Henry Theunnissen, along with the vast majority of the Check and Training staff, were not suitable for re-employment?
- That ”…for varied reasons” (they) “were rejected. Those reasons range from too radical industrially to just plain couldn't fly an aeroplane.”?
If that’s the case, don’t worry about losing your jobs 12 years down the line, chaps. NASA will be beating a path to your doors, begging you to replace the current lot of astronauts and to take over the shuttle programme post haste.
captainschlonger (your ‘handle’ says an awful lot about you, BTW, but let’s not go into that), you’ve obviously read George Orwell’ s’ excellent sci-fi book, “1984”, where ‘Big Brother’, the all-powerful government, employs a huge battery of clerks to continually re-write history to fit in with whatever the current government line is.
Your post is nothing short of mind boggling – some would say ‘quaint’ in its fantastic, inaccurate re-writing of history. But I suspect you know that already.
And Spud, if you really believe what captainschlonger wrote above, you’ve been sorely, gravely misinformed by men (sic) who’ve attempted for twelve years to defend the indefensible – ie, their actions in “taking back their jobs” – to a captive audience of First Officers. If those same First Officers should elect to continue in Aviation, should do themselves a huge favour and listen with an open mind to the other side of the story if its offered to them.
Just to pose a question here in regard to one of the many ‘points’ made by captainschlonger: if he knows of “…many who wanted to stay, but for varied reasons were rejected”, is he saying:
- That the company thought only 23% of their original pilot force were “acceptable” to them as employees post Dispute?
- That 77% of the AN pilot force, including the universally respected Chief Pilot, Captain Henry Theunnissen, along with the vast majority of the Check and Training staff, were not suitable for re-employment?
- That ”…for varied reasons” (they) “were rejected. Those reasons range from too radical industrially to just plain couldn't fly an aeroplane.”?
If that’s the case, don’t worry about losing your jobs 12 years down the line, chaps. NASA will be beating a path to your doors, begging you to replace the current lot of astronauts and to take over the shuttle programme post haste.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Aus
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSU,
I'm surprised after all these years and your plenitude of replies on this subject.
" There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??"
[ GPs versus N.S.W medical Board ]
1988, I think was the year.
Pleased to be of help.
Max
I'm surprised after all these years and your plenitude of replies on this subject.
" There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??"
[ GPs versus N.S.W medical Board ]
1988, I think was the year.
Pleased to be of help.
Max
Nunc est bibendum
I wanted to respond to a couple of posts by Amos and Tool Time on various different threads all over the place.
In '89 when the dispute occurred, I had a Student Pilots license.
I finished high school in 1988. I worked on a loading dock of a large hotel and as a night watchman of a large hotel for 2 1/2 years to pay for my flying. I gained a QF cadetship in Jul 91 and graduated from that in late '92. I started with QF in Jan 95. I now fly a 767. (Boy, any of the QF drives who didn't know who I was before certainly do now. Should I post my senirority number too!
)
By Amos and Tool Time's assertions over the various threads on Dunnunda, I now qualify as a scab and 'my time will come'.
By default too, my mates who have taken F/O slots on a 737 in 1999 some ten years after the events of 'the dipute' have 'lain down with dogs and will wake up with fleas'.
I just wanted to make sure that I had it straight that pilots who had only just entered uni or just started to learn to fly when the dispute occured are now classified as scabs by those on this forum who were involved and found employment elsewhere.
How I choose to respond will depend on that clarification if I get it.
Over to you Amos, TT et al. I'd be interested to know if you can actually defend that position. It will be even more interesting to see if you can defend that position when I tell you the age of some of our F/Os at the moment and then you work out that they were about 13 at the time of the dispute!
In '89 when the dispute occurred, I had a Student Pilots license.
I finished high school in 1988. I worked on a loading dock of a large hotel and as a night watchman of a large hotel for 2 1/2 years to pay for my flying. I gained a QF cadetship in Jul 91 and graduated from that in late '92. I started with QF in Jan 95. I now fly a 767. (Boy, any of the QF drives who didn't know who I was before certainly do now. Should I post my senirority number too!
) By Amos and Tool Time's assertions over the various threads on Dunnunda, I now qualify as a scab and 'my time will come'.
By default too, my mates who have taken F/O slots on a 737 in 1999 some ten years after the events of 'the dipute' have 'lain down with dogs and will wake up with fleas'.
I just wanted to make sure that I had it straight that pilots who had only just entered uni or just started to learn to fly when the dispute occured are now classified as scabs by those on this forum who were involved and found employment elsewhere.
How I choose to respond will depend on that clarification if I get it.
Over to you Amos, TT et al. I'd be interested to know if you can actually defend that position. It will be even more interesting to see if you can defend that position when I tell you the age of some of our F/Os at the moment and then you work out that they were about 13 at the time of the dispute!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainschlonger says:
"If the 89 brawl hadn't occurred, it would have taken 13 years to a jet command, and if I'd worked till age 60, I'd have earned $x. The 89 brawl occurred, I secured a jet command in 6 years, and in six years less, I've earned $x plus $1.1M. What must be made clear is that I didn't take anybody else's job. I took my own, and mine only. I don't have to justify that to anyone"
Congratulations on achieving your jet command 7 years early. Never mind those that were ahead of you. Oh yeh, they resigned didn't they, nearly forgot, glad you reminded us. Maybe you should have a belated command party for all of us to attend to honour a skilled aviator such as yourself. Sure you can afford it now. Besides, hiring a phone booth wouldn't cost that much and ANFO could provide some beefed up security against any gate crashers or queue jumpers. Gotta watch those queue jumpers. Can't have your party spoilt, can we now !
"If the 89 brawl hadn't occurred, it would have taken 13 years to a jet command, and if I'd worked till age 60, I'd have earned $x. The 89 brawl occurred, I secured a jet command in 6 years, and in six years less, I've earned $x plus $1.1M. What must be made clear is that I didn't take anybody else's job. I took my own, and mine only. I don't have to justify that to anyone"
Congratulations on achieving your jet command 7 years early. Never mind those that were ahead of you. Oh yeh, they resigned didn't they, nearly forgot, glad you reminded us. Maybe you should have a belated command party for all of us to attend to honour a skilled aviator such as yourself. Sure you can afford it now. Besides, hiring a phone booth wouldn't cost that much and ANFO could provide some beefed up security against any gate crashers or queue jumpers. Gotta watch those queue jumpers. Can't have your party spoilt, can we now !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spuds,
Thank you very much.
We all know of pilots who couldn't cut is OS, even though I don't know of any who rushed back and got a run here, even though they were seat sniffers. Is anyone suggesting that there aren't seat sniffers in every company?
However, I do know of a number who couldn't cut it here and who are now employed OS, so those who stood firm aren't all the guns they themselves believe they are.
I spoke to Henry prior to returning, and he indicated that he wouldn't be applying, so any info you have to the contrary is quite incorrect.
The only further comment I make is that those who are bitter ****ed up their decisions, and are now attempting to make others pay or somehow feel guilty for their own decisions.
Thank you very much.
We all know of pilots who couldn't cut is OS, even though I don't know of any who rushed back and got a run here, even though they were seat sniffers. Is anyone suggesting that there aren't seat sniffers in every company?
However, I do know of a number who couldn't cut it here and who are now employed OS, so those who stood firm aren't all the guns they themselves believe they are.
I spoke to Henry prior to returning, and he indicated that he wouldn't be applying, so any info you have to the contrary is quite incorrect.
The only further comment I make is that those who are bitter ****ed up their decisions, and are now attempting to make others pay or somehow feel guilty for their own decisions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go, accusations now of seeking to re-write history while Tool-Time now says "..We all resigned.." was "bunkum. It is sad that such contributers pour scorn on the postings of others and are at the same time are unable/unwilling to provide a RATIONAL alternate perspective or explanation and instead resort to name-calling and threats of industry blacklisting. My contempories and myself did not scab (I'll leave it to the pre March '90 crowd to stick up for themselves) and it is easy to demonstrate this by deductive reasoning. A 'scab' is someone who takes someone else's job. This implies that this someone else has both moral and/or legal entitlement to that job. By resigning, there was no longer legal entitlement to that job. That leaves moral issues. It is axiomatic that you can only have moral entitlement to one flying position at a time. In fact, it is usually a condition of employment not to engage in commercial flying with another operator. That AFAP encouraged members to seek other flying positions, they were allowing members to have moral entitlement to other jobs. This was the point at which AFAP members surrendered any moral entitlment to their previous positions at AN, TN EW or IPEC. Not only that, when AFAP told its members to re-apply to the companies for their jobs back, they were saying that members were now to compete for airline vacancies on an EQUAL FOOTING WITH OTHER APPLICANTS. In fact, many of these applications were successful. The implication of all this is that AFAP members had surrendered any claim to exlusive rights to these airline jobs. Any claim that I or my contempories are 'scabs' is lacking any legitimate or rational basis. Personnaly, I think it was very sad that such suffering was caused by this tragic industrial misadventure. 
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
The scab issue is black and white - if you really feel unsure about whether or not you are put into this category, I'll gladly send anyone who wants it, an alphabetical list.
This is the definitive compilation garnered DURING the Dispute, and doesn't take into account different individuals' various interpretations.
Similar to ANFO's "rationalisations", I ran into a past acquaintance (turned hero) several years ago, who also tried to convince me that HE was not a scab because of his date of joining - the names on the list were supplied from WITHIN the companies at the time, and are consistent with date of application.
Additionally it does NOT include names of pilots who APPLIED post March 1990 (Toolie).
End of story!
This is the definitive compilation garnered DURING the Dispute, and doesn't take into account different individuals' various interpretations.
Similar to ANFO's "rationalisations", I ran into a past acquaintance (turned hero) several years ago, who also tried to convince me that HE was not a scab because of his date of joining - the names on the list were supplied from WITHIN the companies at the time, and are consistent with date of application.
Additionally it does NOT include names of pilots who APPLIED post March 1990 (Toolie).
End of story!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANFO, as Spad said in his post above – if you do happen to run across some of those ‘terrible/selfish/short-sighted etc’ 89ers in your post-Ansett security career, do yourself a favour and LISTEN with an open mind to the other side of the argument. You might be surprised at what you learn away from the cloisters of Convent AN.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANFO I got your pvt mssg, but I dont know the precedure in replying (I did try) so Ill reply here if you dont mind.
Um, are you familiar with "remote-control"? We havent sat here for 12 years with our thumbs up our bums coming up with only a plan that says to personaly punch the lights out of scabs should they ever come OS. There are more sophisticated and efective methods for scab control. Enough said.
PS yeh and while Im at it, to all those e-mailers chomping at the bit wanting to break off a piece of scab as a souvenir and screaming at me to stop giving warnings, for christs sake alright I will then! But dont you think prevention is better than cure? Fairs fair - THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED. I couldnt care a sh!t what you do with them if they choose to ignore it and think its all hot air and saber-rattling. So dont think for one minute I do care about these b@stards because I dont, and I dont like the bloodey insinuation that Im somehow doing these vermin a favor. Its just Id rather have conflict avoided if posible. If they stay at home there wont be any. Thank you.
Um, are you familiar with "remote-control"? We havent sat here for 12 years with our thumbs up our bums coming up with only a plan that says to personaly punch the lights out of scabs should they ever come OS. There are more sophisticated and efective methods for scab control. Enough said.
PS yeh and while Im at it, to all those e-mailers chomping at the bit wanting to break off a piece of scab as a souvenir and screaming at me to stop giving warnings, for christs sake alright I will then! But dont you think prevention is better than cure? Fairs fair - THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED. I couldnt care a sh!t what you do with them if they choose to ignore it and think its all hot air and saber-rattling. So dont think for one minute I do care about these b@stards because I dont, and I dont like the bloodey insinuation that Im somehow doing these vermin a favor. Its just Id rather have conflict avoided if posible. If they stay at home there wont be any. Thank you.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainschlonger, yes your name does say a lot about your character.
Reading your post I would have to say it does not surprise me you are having some difficulty.
You lot never cease to amaze when you come up with such denial “ I find it difficult to understand the hatred still being exhibited so long after the event”. You dills were obviously standing behind the door when the ability to differentiate between right and wrong was handed out. I’ve got news for you, decent people find it a wee bit offensive when they are done over by their fellow workers. When will you people ever come to grips with that reality?
I might add that very few of us believe we made the wrong decision. I could never display the same greed and selfcentred attitude that you heroes are so full off. MEMEME. Don’t give me the “ We did it for the family” crap, that doesn’t wash with adults.
By calling all of us a bunch of misfits you make it plain for all to see the stuff you are made of.
The ultimate joke is your assertion that you took your job and only your job when becoming a hero. You then turn round and brag how you will retire earlier and that you attained your command earlier by returning in ’89. It seems to me pal; you took someone else’s job.
Finally Albert, you are obviously one of Chansett’s greatest assets and let’s face it, they can do with all the assets they can muster right now.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadrunner ]
Reading your post I would have to say it does not surprise me you are having some difficulty.
You lot never cease to amaze when you come up with such denial “ I find it difficult to understand the hatred still being exhibited so long after the event”. You dills were obviously standing behind the door when the ability to differentiate between right and wrong was handed out. I’ve got news for you, decent people find it a wee bit offensive when they are done over by their fellow workers. When will you people ever come to grips with that reality?
I might add that very few of us believe we made the wrong decision. I could never display the same greed and selfcentred attitude that you heroes are so full off. MEMEME. Don’t give me the “ We did it for the family” crap, that doesn’t wash with adults.
By calling all of us a bunch of misfits you make it plain for all to see the stuff you are made of.
The ultimate joke is your assertion that you took your job and only your job when becoming a hero. You then turn round and brag how you will retire earlier and that you attained your command earlier by returning in ’89. It seems to me pal; you took someone else’s job.
Finally Albert, you are obviously one of Chansett’s greatest assets and let’s face it, they can do with all the assets they can muster right now.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Roadrunner ]
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Crit,
Your quote
<<I'm surprised after all these years and your plenitude of replies on this subject.
" There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??"
[ GPs versus N.S.W medical Board ]
1988, I think was the year.
Pleased to be of help.>>
Thanks for your help but I was well aware of the aboveand was able to quite clearly discern the vast difference between the doctor's situation and the pilot's dispute without having to employ a great amount of intellectual vigour.
If the reason the AFAP used this "strategy" only for the reason that it was used by the doctors then it must be blindingly obvious that they did not think it through.
That this supposed king hit strategy was adopted well before the dispute and then sprung on the members is a disgrace and outright betrayal.
The AFAP was authorised to negotiateon behalf of the members not to commit industrial suicide. Do you really believe that that strategy would knowingly be approved by the members if it had been revealed previously. Also there is good reason to suspect that the enemy had some foreknowlege of it because of an excess of hubris and ego by some AFAP officials when "socialising" with their employer counterparts.
And the enemy must have delighted in picking up the month's pay forfeited in lieu of notice not to mention the excess super funds lost especially by those with less than ten years service. Australian Airlines admitted that this was $50 million and Ansett would have been similar.
Your quote
<<I'm surprised after all these years and your plenitude of replies on this subject.
" There are many facets to the dispute and the "resignation strategy??"
[ GPs versus N.S.W medical Board ]
1988, I think was the year.
Pleased to be of help.>>
Thanks for your help but I was well aware of the aboveand was able to quite clearly discern the vast difference between the doctor's situation and the pilot's dispute without having to employ a great amount of intellectual vigour.
If the reason the AFAP used this "strategy" only for the reason that it was used by the doctors then it must be blindingly obvious that they did not think it through.
That this supposed king hit strategy was adopted well before the dispute and then sprung on the members is a disgrace and outright betrayal.
The AFAP was authorised to negotiateon behalf of the members not to commit industrial suicide. Do you really believe that that strategy would knowingly be approved by the members if it had been revealed previously. Also there is good reason to suspect that the enemy had some foreknowlege of it because of an excess of hubris and ego by some AFAP officials when "socialising" with their employer counterparts.
And the enemy must have delighted in picking up the month's pay forfeited in lieu of notice not to mention the excess super funds lost especially by those with less than ten years service. Australian Airlines admitted that this was $50 million and Ansett would have been similar.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's opbvious that I'm not dealing with any brain surgeons here.
The money was mentioned in the context of 'even though I've done well, many of those who went overseas have done much better.' You're not complaining about that. Indeed, some friends good naturedly shove it down my throat over a beer.
On choosing to go back, those of us who did never expected that promotion would be different/better than it was previously.
And of course, you don't know the difference between a scab and non-scab, particularly if those who had never been in an Australian airline prior to 89 are being branded scabs.
I have a number of good friends who chose not to return, now work OS and earn buckets of money. They're happy, and see 89 as a turning point that forced them to make a move, one incidentally that they have never regretted. They also see you habitual whingers as misfits.
I reiterate what I said in my first post. At best, you guys are causing yourselves terrible emotional stress, and at worst, you're mentally ill.
Since my last post, I've had a change of mind, and applied for a job OS. Looks like I have an interview, and will be facing the panel next week.
I'm looking forward to some weed attempting to punch my lights out in some foreign port. Better bring along your grandmas fellas, because I don't see any of you ****heads capable of doing the job.
I'll really narrow my identity down for you would be Mike Tysons. 95 Kg, bench press 150 kg and squat 220 kg. Think again heroes and get down to your local gym in the desert.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: captainschlonger ]
The money was mentioned in the context of 'even though I've done well, many of those who went overseas have done much better.' You're not complaining about that. Indeed, some friends good naturedly shove it down my throat over a beer.
On choosing to go back, those of us who did never expected that promotion would be different/better than it was previously.
And of course, you don't know the difference between a scab and non-scab, particularly if those who had never been in an Australian airline prior to 89 are being branded scabs.
I have a number of good friends who chose not to return, now work OS and earn buckets of money. They're happy, and see 89 as a turning point that forced them to make a move, one incidentally that they have never regretted. They also see you habitual whingers as misfits.
I reiterate what I said in my first post. At best, you guys are causing yourselves terrible emotional stress, and at worst, you're mentally ill.
Since my last post, I've had a change of mind, and applied for a job OS. Looks like I have an interview, and will be facing the panel next week.
I'm looking forward to some weed attempting to punch my lights out in some foreign port. Better bring along your grandmas fellas, because I don't see any of you ****heads capable of doing the job.
I'll really narrow my identity down for you would be Mike Tysons. 95 Kg, bench press 150 kg and squat 220 kg. Think again heroes and get down to your local gym in the desert.
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: captainschlonger ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Maroochy, Sydney, Singapore, etc, etc
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After spending some time reading this thread I have come to one conclusion, a few individuals are still trying to convince themselves they made the correct decision in scabbing on their mates.
I could not be prouder of the decision my father and most other 89er's made.
I could not be prouder of the decision my father and most other 89er's made.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captainschlonger.
Don't forget to let us all know where and when you plan to arrive overseas so that welcome drinks can be organised in your honour.
Best regards from your "friends overseas"
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Interceptor ]
Don't forget to let us all know where and when you plan to arrive overseas so that welcome drinks can be organised in your honour.
Best regards from your "friends overseas"
[ 24 September 2001: Message edited by: Interceptor ]