CX management - running scared.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
CX management - running scared.
Having spent the last 7 out of 8 days away from home (that means a 3 day-away trip, 1 day off, immediately followed by a 4 day-away trip) under the rostering system of a company that was NON-unionised iniatially, but now has a union set up to represent the pilots - out of sheer desperation, simply becasue the company previously refused to acknowledgs individual pilot's "gripes" - I would like to make a few points.
Firstly, why would any company that intended treating their employees fairly, fear a union?
After all, "The Company" never acts through one individual alone - unless he has been "prepped" by other company staff...a union.
Talk to your company's paymaster - is HE authorised to give you a salary adjustment of his own volition? Of course not - the decision comes "from above" - the "above" being a union of management staff, who represent the interests of the rank and file company owners.
In the same way, a union of the workers speaks through one mouthpiece to the company, rather than a rabble, shouting at different times, and with difering demands.
This SAVES the company a tremendous amount of time, by dealing with only ONE voice, and thereby needing only one company representative to deal with a multitude of employees.
Imagine having NO union, and EACH employee then INDIVIDUALLY demanding time with various company representaives to hear their grievances eg. twenty pilots a day taking up the time of 20 office staff, merely to hear the SAME or similar complaint!
And so now to my old friend - that sheep in wolf's clothing, shorty's reply to the Australian pilots' dispute. Here was his reply":
"Kaptin M. Your grasp of logic is a bit confusing. So now the union which represented pilots from many companies all over Australia represents the members of one company basically in one city. And the vast majority of aviators caught up in the dispute, involving, as is the case here, part time inept union management on one side and full time company management on t'other, have to work overseas or outside avaiation. You say they won? All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling and the wives and children and children's children of the brave but so naive pilots involved are still scarred. Remember how many took their own lives? The horror of being unemployed with no immediate chance of employment and bills to pay and food to buy and homes to lose fortunes on is beyond shocking. Look at the bigger picture, save the union, there will be winnable battles later when you will get all you are asking for now and more. If you must consider the antipodean situation look what happened to salaries after the dispute was over."
MY grasp of logic is confusing..
Let's look at shortly's "logic":-
Company: " We've gotta get rid of this bloody pilots's union. Tell 'em we REFUSE to talk with them!! It doesn't matter what it costs, we'll bust 'em."
Pilots' reps " Look the grievances we've got here are GENUINE, but if you think they're less than reasonable, let's discuss it."
Company "Nah, 4u)k you !
. If any of the pilots have got a problem, he can come on his own and talk to the Managing Director!"
Pilots' rep "Well actually it's most of the pilots, and trying to single out one or two guys is pretty intimidating - so why don't we discuss this maturely, on a non-individualist basis - much the same way as you are doing when you represent "The Company."
Company "Nah - if any pilot's got a problem, I'll deal with him individually."
So the impasse continues..........................All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling.
Rather than negotiate with the pilots' elected representative body, the FOUR companies BLINDLY adhere to the "Union = bad" principle and end up sending their ENTIRE COMPANY down the gurgler.
And so, shortly, you tell me that this is a VICTORY?
The companies ALL succumb - taking "management" and associated workers with them, whilst the union - in this case the AFAP - survived to fight another day!
Which lecture in my Accountancy and Economics course was this espoused as being an accepted waste reduction principle??????
Not even the most adept IR advisor would wilfully allow a dispute to progress to the point where the Company is sacrificed.
Take on a union....expend the war chest, and then some more....dissolve the company....lose your (and countless other mignons') positions.....the union continues.....but call it a WIN!
We certainly DO have a chasm of difference in our grasp of logic, shortly.!!
Think it over CX pilots.
YOU have something to SELL to the company - your PROFESSIONALISM, EXPERTISE, and KNOWLEDGE, and CX was willing to pay the price you asked in terms of salary and work conditions.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you!" I would say that is PRECISELY what CX "management" is guilty of doing!
Firstly, why would any company that intended treating their employees fairly, fear a union?
After all, "The Company" never acts through one individual alone - unless he has been "prepped" by other company staff...a union.
Talk to your company's paymaster - is HE authorised to give you a salary adjustment of his own volition? Of course not - the decision comes "from above" - the "above" being a union of management staff, who represent the interests of the rank and file company owners.
In the same way, a union of the workers speaks through one mouthpiece to the company, rather than a rabble, shouting at different times, and with difering demands.
This SAVES the company a tremendous amount of time, by dealing with only ONE voice, and thereby needing only one company representative to deal with a multitude of employees.
Imagine having NO union, and EACH employee then INDIVIDUALLY demanding time with various company representaives to hear their grievances eg. twenty pilots a day taking up the time of 20 office staff, merely to hear the SAME or similar complaint!
And so now to my old friend - that sheep in wolf's clothing, shorty's reply to the Australian pilots' dispute. Here was his reply":
"Kaptin M. Your grasp of logic is a bit confusing. So now the union which represented pilots from many companies all over Australia represents the members of one company basically in one city. And the vast majority of aviators caught up in the dispute, involving, as is the case here, part time inept union management on one side and full time company management on t'other, have to work overseas or outside avaiation. You say they won? All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling and the wives and children and children's children of the brave but so naive pilots involved are still scarred. Remember how many took their own lives? The horror of being unemployed with no immediate chance of employment and bills to pay and food to buy and homes to lose fortunes on is beyond shocking. Look at the bigger picture, save the union, there will be winnable battles later when you will get all you are asking for now and more. If you must consider the antipodean situation look what happened to salaries after the dispute was over."
MY grasp of logic is confusing..
Let's look at shortly's "logic":-
Company: " We've gotta get rid of this bloody pilots's union. Tell 'em we REFUSE to talk with them!! It doesn't matter what it costs, we'll bust 'em."
Pilots' reps " Look the grievances we've got here are GENUINE, but if you think they're less than reasonable, let's discuss it."
Company "Nah, 4u)k you !
. If any of the pilots have got a problem, he can come on his own and talk to the Managing Director!"Pilots' rep "Well actually it's most of the pilots, and trying to single out one or two guys is pretty intimidating - so why don't we discuss this maturely, on a non-individualist basis - much the same way as you are doing when you represent "The Company."
Company "Nah - if any pilot's got a problem, I'll deal with him individually."
So the impasse continues..........................All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling.
Rather than negotiate with the pilots' elected representative body, the FOUR companies BLINDLY adhere to the "Union = bad" principle and end up sending their ENTIRE COMPANY down the gurgler.
And so, shortly, you tell me that this is a VICTORY?
The companies ALL succumb - taking "management" and associated workers with them, whilst the union - in this case the AFAP - survived to fight another day!
Which lecture in my Accountancy and Economics course was this espoused as being an accepted waste reduction principle??????
Not even the most adept IR advisor would wilfully allow a dispute to progress to the point where the Company is sacrificed.
Take on a union....expend the war chest, and then some more....dissolve the company....lose your (and countless other mignons') positions.....the union continues.....but call it a WIN!
We certainly DO have a chasm of difference in our grasp of logic, shortly.!!
Think it over CX pilots.
YOU have something to SELL to the company - your PROFESSIONALISM, EXPERTISE, and KNOWLEDGE, and CX was willing to pay the price you asked in terms of salary and work conditions.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you!" I would say that is PRECISELY what CX "management" is guilty of doing!
Last edited by Kaptin M; 16th May 2002 at 00:01.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Kaptin M. with regard to your first paragraph....when you applied, you asked for work, did you not?
And now that you have it, you can do NOTHING but complain.
What's your problem, sport?
And now that you have it, you can do NOTHING but complain.
What's your problem, sport?
.........the problem is sunshine that many airline managements in an attempt to destabilise the unions end up destabilising the whole company.
The act of destroying a union becomes paramount and the airline suffers.
Additionally, pilots tend to stay with the one airline for decades. Corporate ladder-climbing management types however like to use the 'drive-by' shooting type managerial process. Come in with a bang, shoot the place up, lift their own personal profile by (for example screwing a union) and then move on to another airline or industry having left the previous airline profitable for that year but perhaps permanently and fatally damaged.
It is idiots like Frank Lorenzo end up destroying once great airlines.
Eastern Airlines, Ansett, Australian etc etc etc.
Pilots may apply for a job but that does not prevent them from improving their conditions whilst employed. God knows the plethora of egotistical managers seem hell-bent on what some accuse pilots of doing - destroying the industry for their own personal gain. Bring back Juan Trippe and Sir Reginald Ansett I say!
The act of destroying a union becomes paramount and the airline suffers.
Additionally, pilots tend to stay with the one airline for decades. Corporate ladder-climbing management types however like to use the 'drive-by' shooting type managerial process. Come in with a bang, shoot the place up, lift their own personal profile by (for example screwing a union) and then move on to another airline or industry having left the previous airline profitable for that year but perhaps permanently and fatally damaged.
It is idiots like Frank Lorenzo end up destroying once great airlines.
Eastern Airlines, Ansett, Australian etc etc etc.
Pilots may apply for a job but that does not prevent them from improving their conditions whilst employed. God knows the plethora of egotistical managers seem hell-bent on what some accuse pilots of doing - destroying the industry for their own personal gain. Bring back Juan Trippe and Sir Reginald Ansett I say!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Al, with regard to Eastern Air Lines, (and the others I suspect)...seems to me it was the unions that ..."done 'em in"...especially the IAM at EAL. Seem to remember the unions in Australia gave the companies an ultimatum...their hand was called, and the government made 'em fold. In other words, the unions were in over their collective heads to begin with.
And for Kaptin M....if you had wanted a 9-5 job, you should have been a banker. Unfavorable hours, duty times, etc go with the territory, if you want a flight crew position. Simple as that. Thats why you are paid the big bucks.
And for Kaptin M....if you had wanted a 9-5 job, you should have been a banker. Unfavorable hours, duty times, etc go with the territory, if you want a flight crew position. Simple as that. Thats why you are paid the big bucks.
Last edited by 411A; 16th May 2002 at 00:48.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Kaptin M. I read your post with some interest. Did I tread on your last nerve or something? Your re-print of my post is a first for me, I have never been quoted in anything before. (I will happily accept the obvious slanging that that statement will bring) No Sir, I am sorry but you neither understand logical argument nor english grammar. I have never said that the Management won in Australia, I would not use a win/lose relationship in such a matter. No one wins an argument. Everybody lost. But the biggest losers, as usual, are the folk who could least afford it. My points are, part time union management must be tightly controlled by the members, the dispute in Cathay has become so blurred as to have lost credibility, the actions taken by the union against the company over the last 8 years were proving ineffective and following union activity escalation the company retaliated and 50 odd of our fellow aircrew lost their jobs. The action taken by the union against pilots who legally joined the company was dreadfully poorly thought out (ASL). The ineffective moderation by the union against vitriolic posts and unsubstantiated lists (Scab and non-union pilots) on their web site is un professional. Unions must pick their fights or lose. The hiring ban is a joke.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M:
The choice of your thread topic CX management - running scared is certainly not reflected in the rather positive business outlook CX recently announced. Hiring 250 pilots, for instance, is not usually indicative of an airline whose management lacks confidence.
The choice of your thread topic CX management - running scared is certainly not reflected in the rather positive business outlook CX recently announced. Hiring 250 pilots, for instance, is not usually indicative of an airline whose management lacks confidence.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like the raw deal in '89, I am wondering when Cx will get the government to start issuing writs!
Defn: what is written; formal written court order to do or refrain from doing specified act; document issued by crown summonising spiritual or temporal lord to attend parliment or directing sheriff to hold election of member(s) of parliment etc etc etc......
Heard an interseting thing a while ago about '89!
The government of the day namely Labour and Mr Hawke issued writs to some/most of the aircrew involved in the dispute freezing bank accounts, taking possesion of assets ( incl.. house and cars) etc etc etc. If that government was able to get away with that then, I wonder have we really sat down and had a long hard think about what the government in HK is capable of?
It appears they looked the other way when CX gave the 49'ers less than the contracted 3mths to repatriate prior to having the strings cut from above them for removals etc........
After listening to George Hopkins speak i really wonder if we are going to be able to get back into bed with this management after all the dust settles or will there be a steady increase in resignations to other carriers!
Funny that it has already started from quite low down in the seniorty list ( off to DJ). Maybe for the more senior ones, they have spent too much time and effort in hk to pull up stumps and try to gain employment at the bottom of the ;ist in another carrier, or maybe i am brushing over the reality that most of them know they wont get the same conditions elsewhere and even if they did they would most likely have to drive in convoys to go anywhere and their wives would have to cover their faces with a veil coz they dont allow that behavior in most of the countries these guys are speaking of leaving to fly for?????????????
Help me out
Defn: what is written; formal written court order to do or refrain from doing specified act; document issued by crown summonising spiritual or temporal lord to attend parliment or directing sheriff to hold election of member(s) of parliment etc etc etc......
Heard an interseting thing a while ago about '89!
The government of the day namely Labour and Mr Hawke issued writs to some/most of the aircrew involved in the dispute freezing bank accounts, taking possesion of assets ( incl.. house and cars) etc etc etc. If that government was able to get away with that then, I wonder have we really sat down and had a long hard think about what the government in HK is capable of?
It appears they looked the other way when CX gave the 49'ers less than the contracted 3mths to repatriate prior to having the strings cut from above them for removals etc........
After listening to George Hopkins speak i really wonder if we are going to be able to get back into bed with this management after all the dust settles or will there be a steady increase in resignations to other carriers!
Funny that it has already started from quite low down in the seniorty list ( off to DJ). Maybe for the more senior ones, they have spent too much time and effort in hk to pull up stumps and try to gain employment at the bottom of the ;ist in another carrier, or maybe i am brushing over the reality that most of them know they wont get the same conditions elsewhere and even if they did they would most likely have to drive in convoys to go anywhere and their wives would have to cover their faces with a veil coz they dont allow that behavior in most of the countries these guys are speaking of leaving to fly for?????????????
Help me out
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
411, it's very highly likely that the NOT so subtle point I made of my working in a non-unionised company went way over the top of your head. Or perhaps the pressure of getting that Indonesian airline of your's operational, has drained what little psychometric reserves were left. Or, on the other hand, the end of your career as a professional pilot has left you envious of those of us still working.
Lecture over.......the point I was making, was that where INDIVIDUAL pilots are protected from by a "representative" when dealing with their employer - over issues such as inequitous, unfair, or biased rostering
Gosh, does that really happen???!! - the matter is able to be monitored by a third party. The union!
Yes, I AM paid big bucks - but that doesn't mean that I have to bend over just because the someone else has slipped the roster clerk an extra couple of bucks. Does it?? Or is "Dollar rostering" and "promotion by suction" acceptable work ethics for you, 411A.
If NOTHING else, a union will try to ensure that each and every pilot they represent is dealt with on an EVEN and FAIR basis, by the company, as opposed to the alternative of having a non-monitored system where days off, allowances, and duty times, are at the sole whim of one or two people.
I have worked under all 3 systems, (i)pure bidline, (ii)$$'s buys your roster, and (iii)straight, "I love/hate you this month" scheduling, and can assure you that the less the involvement that occurs on BOTH sides, the more EFFICIENT and UNDERSTANDING of each other, was everyone!
Shortly, in ONE paragraph you have managed to "shoot yourself in the foot" . For the second time, please allow me to quote you again. Looks like you're on a winning streak - and all in one topic;
.. followed hot on the heels by this,
Hmm, that sense of logic again, shortly??"
Had you even lightly skipped through the other posts on this forum - and I get the impression that you might perhaps indulge in "selective reading", or myopia, shortly - you would do yourself a favor by NOT writing blatant mistruths, as you have with the following :". The ineffective moderation by the union against vitriolic posts and unsubstantiated lists (Scab and non-union pilots) on their web site.."
..knowing FULL WELL that the scab list was NOT published on the HKAOA's site.
And that in fact the HKAOA publically denounced the publication of that list.
Or, on the other hand, the end of your career as a professional pilot has left you envious of those of us still working. Lecture over.......the point I was making, was that where INDIVIDUAL pilots are protected from by a "representative" when dealing with their employer - over issues such as inequitous, unfair, or biased rostering
Gosh, does that really happen???!! - the matter is able to be monitored by a third party. The union!Yes, I AM paid big bucks - but that doesn't mean that I have to bend over just because the someone else has slipped the roster clerk an extra couple of bucks. Does it?? Or is "Dollar rostering" and "promotion by suction" acceptable work ethics for you, 411A.
If NOTHING else, a union will try to ensure that each and every pilot they represent is dealt with on an EVEN and FAIR basis, by the company, as opposed to the alternative of having a non-monitored system where days off, allowances, and duty times, are at the sole whim of one or two people.
I have worked under all 3 systems, (i)pure bidline, (ii)$$'s buys your roster, and (iii)straight, "I love/hate you this month" scheduling, and can assure you that the less the involvement that occurs on BOTH sides, the more EFFICIENT and UNDERSTANDING of each other, was everyone!
Shortly, in ONE paragraph you have managed to "shoot yourself in the foot" . For the second time, please allow me to quote you again. Looks like you're on a winning streak - and all in one topic;
. I have never said that the Management won in Australia, I would not use a win/lose relationship in such a matter.
Unions must pick their fights or lose.
Had you even lightly skipped through the other posts on this forum - and I get the impression that you might perhaps indulge in "selective reading", or myopia, shortly - you would do yourself a favor by NOT writing blatant mistruths, as you have with the following :". The ineffective moderation by the union against vitriolic posts and unsubstantiated lists (Scab and non-union pilots) on their web site.."
..knowing FULL WELL that the scab list was NOT published on the HKAOA's site.
And that in fact the HKAOA publically denounced the publication of that list.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M, the list was published on the HKAOA website and remained there for 2 days until someone with commonsense and a healthy fear of legal litigation took it off. The public denunciation ( if you can call a notice by "Merlin" to desist on cprune "public" when there is no public access) of the list was absent for an appropriate period of time, many have taken this to hold some meaning.
If you wish to call others to order for so called untruths then perhaps you should be certain of your own content prior to hitting that submit button.
respectfully
FW
If you wish to call others to order for so called untruths then perhaps you should be certain of your own content prior to hitting that submit button.
respectfully
FW
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M. you have missed your vocation. You should have been a politician, or a journalist or perhaps a used car salesman or even an accountant. You can selectively quote from my posts until you are pink in the face but it won't change the facts. In my quote I was talking about two individual but similar disputes. In the Australian dispute no one won, but the ones who lost heaviest were the littlest involved and they are still paying either financially or in mental anguish, in the dispute in Hong Kong we are rapidly reaching the same place, a case of deja-vu prevails for me. To be honest I am not sure where you are coming from, and I doubt you do either. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed reading your opinion, distorted as it may be. It's not over but I wish it was. The upcoming GM will spell out the ending. I want common sense and good judgement to win out over blinkered militancy but I have severe doubts about that. It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemy but it takes a braver one to stand against his friends. And for the quiet majority, never forget silence signifies consent.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup... running scared all right.... that's why they're on a hiring binge...Herald Tribune......got us all worried......maybe they're scared the HKAoA will wise up and stop acting like morons...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very same Frankg, and hardly public with ref the Kaptin's assertion of the HKAOA's stance taken against the publishing of names, addresses and telephone numbers of new recruits (note not replacement workers or scabs) when you need a password to get into cprune......a bloody cowardly act that has done the AOA's cause no end of harm and will long be remembered. Time for a change in leadership and direction.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
The fact is firewall, the list (which I did peruse bnefly when a direct link was provided, and that link was to a private web address) purportedly listed the names (and some numbers, that were NOT specified as telephone numbers, and could just as easily have been taken to be residential area codes or seniority numbers), of people who KNOWINGLY defied a ban placed by the CX pilots' representative body, the HKAOA.
Whether the ban is suitable is matter for discussion. Of course it will never be ACCEPTABLE to everyone!
Certainly shortly everyone wishes this matter was resolved, and agree entirely with your sentiments (and btw, I AM "pink in the face") when you state, "It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemy but it takes a braver one to stand against his friends. And for the quiet majority, never forget silence signifies consent."
The direction of the HKAOA must come from pilots the rank and file, and enacted upon by the leadership.
A change in leadership should not necessarily mean a change in direction, firewall - "Don't shoot the messenger" - and it is my understanding that the current leadership is well regarded.
By necessity this has been a war of attrition, with CX management failing miserably in their attempts to goad the AOA into taking "knee-jerk" responsive industrial action.
The needless frittering away of tens of millions of dollars on wet-lease aircraft, the cost of re-training to replace the sacked "49'ers", and the increased operating costs as a result of the loss of "goodwill", has THIS management tagged as Cathay Pacific's most WASTE INEFFICIENT in its history.
Far from being non revenue productive this management is NEGATIVE REVENUE producing.
Whether the ban is suitable is matter for discussion. Of course it will never be ACCEPTABLE to everyone!
Certainly shortly everyone wishes this matter was resolved, and agree entirely with your sentiments (and btw, I AM "pink in the face") when you state, "It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemy but it takes a braver one to stand against his friends. And for the quiet majority, never forget silence signifies consent."
The direction of the HKAOA must come from pilots the rank and file, and enacted upon by the leadership.
A change in leadership should not necessarily mean a change in direction, firewall - "Don't shoot the messenger" - and it is my understanding that the current leadership is well regarded.
By necessity this has been a war of attrition, with CX management failing miserably in their attempts to goad the AOA into taking "knee-jerk" responsive industrial action.
The needless frittering away of tens of millions of dollars on wet-lease aircraft, the cost of re-training to replace the sacked "49'ers", and the increased operating costs as a result of the loss of "goodwill", has THIS management tagged as Cathay Pacific's most WASTE INEFFICIENT in its history.
Far from being non revenue productive this management is NEGATIVE REVENUE producing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin, the list was on cprune prior to it being placed on the yahoo site. This is not a story but fact. Whether you saw it or not on the AOA site is another issue.
The post also stated ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE numbers with the invitation for some early morning wake up calls.
When have you seen an 8 digit seniority number?
If it walks,talks and looks like a duck then there is a fair chance it is a duck....cut the semantics.
To make matters worse it contained names of 2 pilots who have been with the company for 12 months....duh! Shoot first and ask questions later perhaps, and here I thought we were supposed to be an intelligent educated bunch of professionals.
Finally,I do not recall saying anything about shooting the messenger, just changing both the message and who is delivering it.
The post also stated ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE numbers with the invitation for some early morning wake up calls.
When have you seen an 8 digit seniority number?
If it walks,talks and looks like a duck then there is a fair chance it is a duck....cut the semantics.
To make matters worse it contained names of 2 pilots who have been with the company for 12 months....duh! Shoot first and ask questions later perhaps, and here I thought we were supposed to be an intelligent educated bunch of professionals.
Finally,I do not recall saying anything about shooting the messenger, just changing both the message and who is delivering it.
Last edited by fire wall; 17th May 2002 at 02:57.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M. 'I see your true colours shining through'. Just up to a bit of mischief. A vote for increased militancy is a vote for the one hundred and 49ers. I feel, after discussing this with many rational AOA members, whom I call friend, that the AOA has a tenuous hold on a large number of its members. And I re-state, silence signifies consent, so speak out against escalation. If this means the committee has to go then so be it. Take the hard way out and stand up to your colleagues.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
posted 16th May 2002 00:44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well Al, with regard to Eastern Air Lines, (and the others I suspect)...seems to me it was the unions that ..."done 'em in"...especially the IAM at EAL. " Guess what 411? Things aren't always as they seem. Instead of spouting off like you always do, why not try reading the books on the subject and educating yourself about it. I don't even know where to begin trying to explain a complicated subjuct to a simpleton like you. You posts are the most ignorant and uninformed on all of pprune. Please, just go away. Burn your laptop, get a life. I'm ready to hurl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well Al, with regard to Eastern Air Lines, (and the others I suspect)...seems to me it was the unions that ..."done 'em in"...especially the IAM at EAL. " Guess what 411? Things aren't always as they seem. Instead of spouting off like you always do, why not try reading the books on the subject and educating yourself about it. I don't even know where to begin trying to explain a complicated subjuct to a simpleton like you. You posts are the most ignorant and uninformed on all of pprune. Please, just go away. Burn your laptop, get a life. I'm ready to hurl.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
allthatglitters....oh boy no wonder we're doomed...i think you mean....conquer....unless you're real management.....lorenzo style ....or 411A
....or 411A
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unions" do have their place...too bad it was in the last century.
A reasonable compromise has to (eventually) be realised...and suspect it will be the AOA that will do the "necessary".
Wish them luck...they will need same.
A reasonable compromise has to (eventually) be realised...and suspect it will be the AOA that will do the "necessary".
Wish them luck...they will need same.