Capt John Warham
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: At Home
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I served on the GC for a few years and after watching how the company approached working with us, in conjunction with reading his first book, The True Story of the 49ers, it made me realize nothing was ever going to change and that I needed to begin my exit from the company(among many, many other indicators). John fought a very good fight, and although the result was perhaps not worth it financially, he certainly opened my eyes and I've been better off ever since reading about his experience. Every CX pilot past and present should read his books, especially the first one. RIP Capt Warham.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great guy, terrific leader, both attributes his foes could, and still can if they have the inclination, learn from.
A man of integrity and principle. Hopefully he’s in a better place.
Much respect.
A man of integrity and principle. Hopefully he’s in a better place.
Much respect.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most tenacious persons I have ever met. John was your British bulldog to the core. Once he had his teeth in the despicable management team who orchestrated the 49 er attack he never let go. He self taught himself the intricacies of the legal fight and won a moral victory. Buy his books if you haven’t done so already, I’m sure his widow would appreciate the gesture.
RIP John.
RIP John.
John was gutsy, inspirational and a leader of men.
He stood against unfairness, tyranny and bullies...and he did bloody their noses which they had in the trough.
Long may he be remembered for the good fight he led.
He stood against unfairness, tyranny and bullies...and he did bloody their noses which they had in the trough.
Long may he be remembered for the good fight he led.
Most of us had more respect for Captain Warham than for all of CX management put together. His book is prominent on my shelf as I type.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 3rd Jun 2022 at 23:26.
I was thinking the same thing today Cpt Dart, he had more moral compass than any and all of the CX management that he negotiated against. They were intellectual pigmies in his presence.
He told me a time when he was in consultation with a senior government official who was sent as a mediator in the union negotiations. He destroyed her with knowledge and logic, both of which she lacked in spades, and she was withdrawn from the negotiations with her tail between her legs.
The cricket metaphors he wrote about his giving evidence in the court case were a classic of tragic humour. In the same book he relates the elation on hearing the admission from the CX board member that the 49ers had been fired, "For no particular reason", which was the crux of the case. The phrase, "Cathay management striving hard for the moral low ground" was coined in the early 1990s, but was reborn in that court case.
A good man, sorry to see him and his like go.
He told me a time when he was in consultation with a senior government official who was sent as a mediator in the union negotiations. He destroyed her with knowledge and logic, both of which she lacked in spades, and she was withdrawn from the negotiations with her tail between her legs.
The cricket metaphors he wrote about his giving evidence in the court case were a classic of tragic humour. In the same book he relates the elation on hearing the admission from the CX board member that the 49ers had been fired, "For no particular reason", which was the crux of the case. The phrase, "Cathay management striving hard for the moral low ground" was coined in the early 1990s, but was reborn in that court case.
A good man, sorry to see him and his like go.
I spoke several times with John after reading his book; he was at Hamble after me and enlightened me on how the mentality towards safety had changed after the Trident went in at Staines coincidently after I had criticised said hiding mistakes during my course as a veiled observation at what happened in BEA.
I admired him in that he stood up against management when many, including me, would have folded. Saw a similar thing in my last carrier.
RIP
I admired him in that he stood up against management when many, including me, would have folded. Saw a similar thing in my last carrier.
RIP
I also knew John @ CX. I agree with all the above sentiments; more integrity than the apparent management and ‘star chamber’ put together. RIP John.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust the likes of NR and fellow henchmen hang their heads in shame at the passing of a man who had more integrity in his pinkie than all of them combined. Nothing but contempt for those that persecuted him and the entire pilot body. They have succeeded in bringing the airline to ruin.
For those, like me, who hadn't heard of John Warham, this article is particularly interesting:
Deacons
December 30, 2009 - Hong Kong
John Simpson Warham and others V. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
Winning the case against its flight attendants, Cathay Pacific loses against a group of pilots they sacked during a 2001 industrial dispute. The airline, one of Asia's biggest, was ordered to pay damages to each of the 18 pilots whose employment had been terminated by Cathay Pacific.
The ruling came after an eight-year legal fight brought by the pilots who were among a group of 49 whose employment had been terminated by the airline during a bitter dispute over pay and rosters.
The court ruled that Cathay Pacific wrongly and unfairly dismissed the pilots and ordered the airline to pay each pilot for defamatory remarks it made about them.
Cathay argued that they terminated the 49 pilots' employment due to their conduct of having unusually high rates of calling-in-sick on duty or reserve days, their failure to discuss with management the reasons as to why such was happening and their perceived negative attitude towards Cathay and fellow employees.
The Court of First Instance held that Cathay's reasoning did not amount to a valid reason to dismiss the 49 pilots under the Employment Ordinance. In deciding the case, the judge stated that for an alleged reason for dismissal to fall under the relevant section in the Employment Ordinance, the reason must "first of all, be true". That said, if the alleged "conduct" plays only an incidental role in an employer's decision for firing the employee or if such "conduct" is trivial, the judge held that the "conduct" cannot as a matter of law qualify as a "valid reason" within s.32K of the Employment Ordinance.
During the trial, the management reasoned that if negotiations with the union were fruitful, there would be no need to dismiss any of the 49 pilots. The 49 pilots would then individually drop their debilitating campaign, cease to be abnormally sick, and restore the goodwill withdrawn under the contract compliance. The court considered that therefore the "conduct" of the 49 pilots were not the underlying or true reason for their dismissal. Because management had no real idea whether any of them were genuinely malingerers or troublemakers, there was merely the probability that they were. That was deemed a sufficient basis for management despite the strictures of the "Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures" ("DGP") Cathay has in place. That could only have been because the real target behind the mass dismissals was not the individuals concerned, but the union.
Furthermore, the judge observed that there was no hard evidence of such anti-company or anti-social conduct alleged by Cathay and that although Cathay has throughout the trial studiously denied that it dismissed the 49 pilots for "misconduct" as opposed to mere "conduct"; it is no doubt that Cathay was accusing the 49 pilots of "gross misconduct" within the terms of the DGP. For a dismissal under the DGP for gross misconduct, Cathay must first institute procedures under the DGP which would enable the officer facing possible dismissal with the chance to put forward one's side of a matter and clear one's name. Contrary to the DGP, none of the 49 pilots were given a chance to put forward their case prior to dismissal on the basis of their alleged conduct. No opportunity was given to them to explain any supposed abnormality in their sickness records or any alleged anti-social behaviour as reported.
As such, the court held that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs to each receive the maximum award under the Employment Ordinance s.32P of HK$150,000. Furthermore, despite Cathay's denial, it has as a matter of fact dismissed the 49 pilots in part for misconduct. By failing to instigate and complete disciplinary procedures, the quantum of damage is to pay each of the 49 pilots pay for a month's work. In addition, Cathay was also ordered to pay damages to these pilots for defamatory remarks it made about them.
December 30, 2009 - Hong Kong
John Simpson Warham and others V. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
Winning the case against its flight attendants, Cathay Pacific loses against a group of pilots they sacked during a 2001 industrial dispute. The airline, one of Asia's biggest, was ordered to pay damages to each of the 18 pilots whose employment had been terminated by Cathay Pacific.
The ruling came after an eight-year legal fight brought by the pilots who were among a group of 49 whose employment had been terminated by the airline during a bitter dispute over pay and rosters.
The court ruled that Cathay Pacific wrongly and unfairly dismissed the pilots and ordered the airline to pay each pilot for defamatory remarks it made about them.
Cathay argued that they terminated the 49 pilots' employment due to their conduct of having unusually high rates of calling-in-sick on duty or reserve days, their failure to discuss with management the reasons as to why such was happening and their perceived negative attitude towards Cathay and fellow employees.
The Court of First Instance held that Cathay's reasoning did not amount to a valid reason to dismiss the 49 pilots under the Employment Ordinance. In deciding the case, the judge stated that for an alleged reason for dismissal to fall under the relevant section in the Employment Ordinance, the reason must "first of all, be true". That said, if the alleged "conduct" plays only an incidental role in an employer's decision for firing the employee or if such "conduct" is trivial, the judge held that the "conduct" cannot as a matter of law qualify as a "valid reason" within s.32K of the Employment Ordinance.
During the trial, the management reasoned that if negotiations with the union were fruitful, there would be no need to dismiss any of the 49 pilots. The 49 pilots would then individually drop their debilitating campaign, cease to be abnormally sick, and restore the goodwill withdrawn under the contract compliance. The court considered that therefore the "conduct" of the 49 pilots were not the underlying or true reason for their dismissal. Because management had no real idea whether any of them were genuinely malingerers or troublemakers, there was merely the probability that they were. That was deemed a sufficient basis for management despite the strictures of the "Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures" ("DGP") Cathay has in place. That could only have been because the real target behind the mass dismissals was not the individuals concerned, but the union.
Furthermore, the judge observed that there was no hard evidence of such anti-company or anti-social conduct alleged by Cathay and that although Cathay has throughout the trial studiously denied that it dismissed the 49 pilots for "misconduct" as opposed to mere "conduct"; it is no doubt that Cathay was accusing the 49 pilots of "gross misconduct" within the terms of the DGP. For a dismissal under the DGP for gross misconduct, Cathay must first institute procedures under the DGP which would enable the officer facing possible dismissal with the chance to put forward one's side of a matter and clear one's name. Contrary to the DGP, none of the 49 pilots were given a chance to put forward their case prior to dismissal on the basis of their alleged conduct. No opportunity was given to them to explain any supposed abnormality in their sickness records or any alleged anti-social behaviour as reported.
As such, the court held that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs to each receive the maximum award under the Employment Ordinance s.32P of HK$150,000. Furthermore, despite Cathay's denial, it has as a matter of fact dismissed the 49 pilots in part for misconduct. By failing to instigate and complete disciplinary procedures, the quantum of damage is to pay each of the 49 pilots pay for a month's work. In addition, Cathay was also ordered to pay damages to these pilots for defamatory remarks it made about them.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sad day for all professional aviators. Although JSW knew he had a rough diamond manner, he was a diamond through and through.
I had the utmost respect for the way he stood firm on his values.
valé John - hope that his family finds peace and validation in the respect shown in all these posts.
I had the utmost respect for the way he stood firm on his values.
valé John - hope that his family finds peace and validation in the respect shown in all these posts.