GC votes needed
cpd,
Just examples of the deceipts emanating from AOAC. As you well know
the claims that joining with Oz & HK would compromise you were also fabrications.
A pressing issue was to stay united but you reneged on that so why should anyone believe you again.
HNY
Just examples of the deceipts emanating from AOAC. As you well know
the claims that joining with Oz & HK would compromise you were also fabrications.
A pressing issue was to stay united but you reneged on that so why should anyone believe you again.
HNY
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB,
You are one angry guy! You keep saying "you" as If you are blaming "me" when we're on the same team or so I thought. I suspect the attitude you are displaying and the tact that is missing in your post is all part in parcel to why WE are having so many problems.
You are one angry guy! You keep saying "you" as If you are blaming "me" when we're on the same team or so I thought. I suspect the attitude you are displaying and the tact that is missing in your post is all part in parcel to why WE are having so many problems.
Last edited by cpdude; 15th Jan 2013 at 03:11.
cpd,
Not angry, just pragmatic. AOAC have shown management that divide and conquer is a worthwhile strategy and AOAC then blames everyone else for not being united. The lack of talks with CX seems to date from them getting AOAC to sign up or is that just a coincidence.
I didn't know this was being discussed on the AOA Forums but I'll look.
Not angry, just pragmatic. AOAC have shown management that divide and conquer is a worthwhile strategy and AOAC then blames everyone else for not being united. The lack of talks with CX seems to date from them getting AOAC to sign up or is that just a coincidence.
I didn't know this was being discussed on the AOA Forums but I'll look.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect BusyB, I don't think we can blame anyone else but ourselves for a lack of talks for the reasons I suggested earlier. As for discussions, it was an old argument when the split was occurring.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of New Year levity, you know it makes sense?
Iif you went to the Headland you could PRUNE away to each other on the new free WiFi - living' the dream just keeps getting better.
Iif you went to the Headland you could PRUNE away to each other on the new free WiFi - living' the dream just keeps getting better.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think the AOAHK & AOA AUS threw them out?
Nothing to do with AOA A; it was HKAOA that spat the dummy.
What about the farce with AOA Australia then? HKAOA has kept quiet about that.
A huge number of dollars paid by HKAOA to lawyers in Australia who go and mess up the registration process so after 2 years or so they have to cancel all the work that's been done and start again. AOA Australia (hopefully!) after many more dollars to be paid by HKAOA and more time, will become Australian AOA. If the HKAOA wait until that's signed and sealed we'll get no negotiations with CX.
HKAOA has made a huge mess of onshoring Australia and Canada and, as always, blame the company for the all the mistakes.
At least AOA C paid their own way and are registered - despite the HKAOA trying to stop it.
What about the farce with AOA Australia then? HKAOA has kept quiet about that.
A huge number of dollars paid by HKAOA to lawyers in Australia who go and mess up the registration process so after 2 years or so they have to cancel all the work that's been done and start again. AOA Australia (hopefully!) after many more dollars to be paid by HKAOA and more time, will become Australian AOA. If the HKAOA wait until that's signed and sealed we'll get no negotiations with CX.
HKAOA has made a huge mess of onshoring Australia and Canada and, as always, blame the company for the all the mistakes.
At least AOA C paid their own way and are registered - despite the HKAOA trying to stop it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAR you are so wrong in what you say about AOAC and pretty much everything else you rambled on about.
AOAC was paid for by the HKAOA funds as was AOAA. Whoever is feeding you this rubbish has an agenda, or is it you?
The HKAOA never tried to stop the AOAC getting registered at all, that happened quite early in the piece. What the HKAOA tried to stop, was AOAC ignoring basically every agreement they made with the "Federation" just to suit their own needs, in some cases it was pointed out they were signing inferior contracts. This did not stop them and they decided they wanted to make their own decisions,once their contract was closed, you could not open it unless both sides agreed. One of the reasons the HKAOA paid all this money was it felt it could benefit from bargaining rights from the on shored unions. This theory is fine if that union wants to play ball, AOAC had other ideas!
AOAA have not had to start again although there were many mistakes made along the way, but AOAA (as well as AOAC did) have been duly paying back what they can.
The whole on shoring process as you call it, was very messy but it is unprecedented in aviation union history so maybe you can cut the HKAOA some slack in trying to keep up with the company's decision to onshore.
AOAC was paid for by the HKAOA funds as was AOAA. Whoever is feeding you this rubbish has an agenda, or is it you?
The HKAOA never tried to stop the AOAC getting registered at all, that happened quite early in the piece. What the HKAOA tried to stop, was AOAC ignoring basically every agreement they made with the "Federation" just to suit their own needs, in some cases it was pointed out they were signing inferior contracts. This did not stop them and they decided they wanted to make their own decisions,once their contract was closed, you could not open it unless both sides agreed. One of the reasons the HKAOA paid all this money was it felt it could benefit from bargaining rights from the on shored unions. This theory is fine if that union wants to play ball, AOAC had other ideas!
AOAA have not had to start again although there were many mistakes made along the way, but AOAA (as well as AOAC did) have been duly paying back what they can.
The whole on shoring process as you call it, was very messy but it is unprecedented in aviation union history so maybe you can cut the HKAOA some slack in trying to keep up with the company's decision to onshore.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fenwicksgirl,
Your post is a complete fabrication created from bits of truth into a tall tail. This probably created by the propaganda created by DD.
It is true that the HKAOA PAID for the initial setup and expenses over the first year or so but AOAC was also paying monthly dues exceeding 20K (not HKG dollars) per month. After the first year AOAC was paying back (IE contributing more than costing) per month and by the time they split had repaid THE ENTIRE AMOUNT that was SENT TO AOAC. Now HKAOA then tried to up the actual cost of AOAC by saying that they now owed a portion of staff, lease etc etc but when you add up all the bills sent to the HKAOA from AOAC the final amount was paid.
In the end, AOAC was contributing over 20K per month of net revenue to the HKAOA coffers and this is the investment that HKAOA tore up when they cancelled the service agreement.
With AOAA, it is true this was fully funded by the HKAOA and I believe the tab is over 500KAUD. That is something we should focus on and ask DD why he allowed this to go on so long.
AOAC's publicly declared mandate was to get a Canadian contract. That mandate never changed and they now have that. The only thing they refused to do was hand over control to the likes of DD. After his failure with the AOAA and communicating with the company, I would say in hindsight it was a good play!
Your post is a complete fabrication created from bits of truth into a tall tail. This probably created by the propaganda created by DD.
It is true that the HKAOA PAID for the initial setup and expenses over the first year or so but AOAC was also paying monthly dues exceeding 20K (not HKG dollars) per month. After the first year AOAC was paying back (IE contributing more than costing) per month and by the time they split had repaid THE ENTIRE AMOUNT that was SENT TO AOAC. Now HKAOA then tried to up the actual cost of AOAC by saying that they now owed a portion of staff, lease etc etc but when you add up all the bills sent to the HKAOA from AOAC the final amount was paid.
In the end, AOAC was contributing over 20K per month of net revenue to the HKAOA coffers and this is the investment that HKAOA tore up when they cancelled the service agreement.
With AOAA, it is true this was fully funded by the HKAOA and I believe the tab is over 500KAUD. That is something we should focus on and ask DD why he allowed this to go on so long.
AOAC's publicly declared mandate was to get a Canadian contract. That mandate never changed and they now have that. The only thing they refused to do was hand over control to the likes of DD. After his failure with the AOAA and communicating with the company, I would say in hindsight it was a good play!
cpd,
Yes, AOAC has paid back all its setup expenses. The 20,000/month is irrelevant, no-one is going to accept "members" who's reps don't stand by their agreements.
AOAA is repaying its expenses which are more than AOAC's because the laws are more complex. They are of course already reaping the benefits of Long Service Leave etc so no-one is complaining.
I suspect DD is seen as a "fall guy" for AOAC.
Yes, AOAC has paid back all its setup expenses. The 20,000/month is irrelevant, no-one is going to accept "members" who's reps don't stand by their agreements.
AOAA is repaying its expenses which are more than AOAC's because the laws are more complex. They are of course already reaping the benefits of Long Service Leave etc so no-one is complaining.
I suspect DD is seen as a "fall guy" for AOAC.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB that may be true but the records need to be set that in the end there was NO FINANCIAL cost to the HKAOA members from AOAC and the onshoring and negotiations of the Canadian contract.
It's difficult enough to ever find a middle ground to bring our pilots together again without having false statements being made by those with more frustration then facts.
It's difficult enough to ever find a middle ground to bring our pilots together again without having false statements being made by those with more frustration then facts.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpdude. You criticize my post for fabricating but only go on about payment back to HKAOA. I did point out in brackets in my post that indeed AOAC had been doing this, so I don't know what you are on about.
Your attack on DD has AOAC agenda written all over it. DD does not approve any payment to any organization, in fact he doesn't vote on anything! He is staff and staff don't vote!! AOAC took offense to DD as he was the mouth piece at the time for the rest of the Federation, they did not like what they heard but make no mistake, he was OUR voice and if AOAC was peeved at him, they were actually peeved at us. The ego maniac that was the AOAC Chair did not like anyone telling him how to run things, in fact to get his way I heard he even related the HKAOA to a Communist entity, I.e the Chinese government. Although he never took offense to receiving any money from this communist related entity!
At the end of the day, everyone would wish this never happened and maybe in hindsight things could have been done better but as I mentioned in my previous post, this on shoring of unions was unprecedented and am sure all on both sides did what they thought was best.
Your attack on DD has AOAC agenda written all over it. DD does not approve any payment to any organization, in fact he doesn't vote on anything! He is staff and staff don't vote!! AOAC took offense to DD as he was the mouth piece at the time for the rest of the Federation, they did not like what they heard but make no mistake, he was OUR voice and if AOAC was peeved at him, they were actually peeved at us. The ego maniac that was the AOAC Chair did not like anyone telling him how to run things, in fact to get his way I heard he even related the HKAOA to a Communist entity, I.e the Chinese government. Although he never took offense to receiving any money from this communist related entity!
At the end of the day, everyone would wish this never happened and maybe in hindsight things could have been done better but as I mentioned in my previous post, this on shoring of unions was unprecedented and am sure all on both sides did what they thought was best.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that's it then. The pilots of CX are resigned to an endless war of "he said, she said," rather letting bygones be bygones and get on with joining forces to resolve issues that affect all. Face it, each Committee did what they thought was best for their members at the time. Maybe it was right, maybe it was wrong, who cares, get over it. Lets try again.
I propose that the three Presidents sit down with a neutral moderator and clean sheet of paper to forge an agreement that benefits all. Rule #1: Any party that brings up past differences will be excluded from further proceedings.
I propose that the three Presidents sit down with a neutral moderator and clean sheet of paper to forge an agreement that benefits all. Rule #1: Any party that brings up past differences will be excluded from further proceedings.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are so wrong
F...Girl
I don't have an agenda and I'm not in AOAC. But I do have mates who are. So after listening to their side of things I am sympathetic I admit.
You wrote "AOAA have not had to start again". Sorry, they ARE having to start again. They have dumped their lawywers and appointed new ones. They will stop the current registration process and start a new one, with a new name - Australian AOA. It's you I'm afraid who is so wrong.
AAR
I don't have an agenda and I'm not in AOAC. But I do have mates who are. So after listening to their side of things I am sympathetic I admit.
You wrote "AOAA have not had to start again". Sorry, they ARE having to start again. They have dumped their lawywers and appointed new ones. They will stop the current registration process and start a new one, with a new name - Australian AOA. It's you I'm afraid who is so wrong.
AAR
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tbird,
I totally agree with you however from what I hear, the recent advances made by AOAC have been rejected by the HKAOA Chairman.
Fenicksgirl,
You don't have to have a have a vote to be influential and DD's USA style of drum banging tactics isn't getting anyone anywhere! As a matter of fact, it's making the company more reluctant to do anything the union wants done.
I totally agree with you however from what I hear, the recent advances made by AOAC have been rejected by the HKAOA Chairman.
Fenicksgirl,
You don't have to have a have a vote to be influential and DD's USA style of drum banging tactics isn't getting anyone anywhere! As a matter of fact, it's making the company more reluctant to do anything the union wants done.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to make a correction. It is not the pilots of CX that are resigned to this endless swinging of handbags. It's a select few individuals (we all know who they are) and it seems they are doing this on their on personal agenda's that in no way reflect the desires of the general membership.
I have another suggestion. How about each Association put out a questionnaire to its members and ask a simple yes or no question. One that is not baited by agenda's. The question could be: Do you want to see the Chairmen of the HKAOA, AAOA and AOAC sit down together with the intent of reaching an agreement on how to move together as a united body?
Or better than that: Do you want to see the Chairmen of the HKAOA, AAOA and AOAC sit down and have a few beers together?
I have another suggestion. How about each Association put out a questionnaire to its members and ask a simple yes or no question. One that is not baited by agenda's. The question could be: Do you want to see the Chairmen of the HKAOA, AAOA and AOAC sit down together with the intent of reaching an agreement on how to move together as a united body?
Or better than that: Do you want to see the Chairmen of the HKAOA, AAOA and AOAC sit down and have a few beers together?
Last edited by Thunderbird4; 8th Jan 2013 at 01:27.