What is the Federation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the Federation
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP or Federation) operates as both a trade union and a professional association of all air pilots in Australia. Importantly we represent pilots only and are not affiliated to any political party or peak union body.
The role we have as a trade union is to protect and improve the conditions of employment for its members involved in Airline, GA, Helicopters, Aerial AG, EMS, charter and Flight instruction.
As a professional association, the members and Federation's staff are active in promoting flight safety and improving Australian and Global aviation standards.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is also a founding member of the International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations (IFALPA). IFALPA provides an international forum for the Federation to discuss important aviation policy issues such as airspace reform, dangerous goods, operational techniques, CRM, flight and duty time limitations, flight data recorder legislation and many other significant operational and legal matters. Today our representation at IFALPA is made up as part of AUS-ALPA.
The structure of the Federation is based on six State Branches governed by Branch Committees elected by pilot members. The Branch Committees in turn elect local chairman and delegates to the Executive Committee and Convention. The President and Principal Officers of the Federation are operating pilots elected by all financial members through a secret postal ballot conducted by the Electoral Commission.
The Convention meets annually to deal with rule amendments and policy changes. The Executive Committee ensures that the policy changes are implemented.
Meetings of these bodies are open to the general membership. New members are encouraged to develop an active interest in the affairs of the organization.
The Federations Constitution also provides for Councils to be elected to cover groups of pilots organised along enterprise lines at present the CASA pilot group form their own council.
In summary, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots primary responsibility is to directly represent in industrial matters all pilots making a living out of flying in Australia other than Military and Qantas (International and Shorthaul) pilots. It is also very active in promoting flight safety and improving standards.
I feel it important to publish this statement as there are many misinformed and deliberately destructive comments/statements about the Federation and what we do.
We are not claiming to be perfect but what we are offering to those who want it is a pilot body focused only issues affecting your career as a professional pilot. We do not claim to be the guardians or be able to win every fight nor is the body ego driven by the employer relationship or type we fly.
We are open to all from the time you learn to fly to the highest airline positions you can attain as we consider you all professional pilots with a part to play in deciding the future of Australian aviation.
Our policies are structured to cover all companies and types of operations our members and industrial/technical staff has had significant involvement in the industry over several decades. We have continuing roles with the regulator.
The important fact is it is you as a professional pilot that makes the Federation not the other way around. So next time you want to criticise us please consider how active you have been on a committee, as a negotiator, representative at regulator forums or plainly as a member and work out if you can supply the solution or are in fact part of the problem?
Lawrie Cox
Manager – Industrial Relations
AFAP
The role we have as a trade union is to protect and improve the conditions of employment for its members involved in Airline, GA, Helicopters, Aerial AG, EMS, charter and Flight instruction.
As a professional association, the members and Federation's staff are active in promoting flight safety and improving Australian and Global aviation standards.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots is also a founding member of the International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations (IFALPA). IFALPA provides an international forum for the Federation to discuss important aviation policy issues such as airspace reform, dangerous goods, operational techniques, CRM, flight and duty time limitations, flight data recorder legislation and many other significant operational and legal matters. Today our representation at IFALPA is made up as part of AUS-ALPA.
The structure of the Federation is based on six State Branches governed by Branch Committees elected by pilot members. The Branch Committees in turn elect local chairman and delegates to the Executive Committee and Convention. The President and Principal Officers of the Federation are operating pilots elected by all financial members through a secret postal ballot conducted by the Electoral Commission.
The Convention meets annually to deal with rule amendments and policy changes. The Executive Committee ensures that the policy changes are implemented.
Meetings of these bodies are open to the general membership. New members are encouraged to develop an active interest in the affairs of the organization.
The Federations Constitution also provides for Councils to be elected to cover groups of pilots organised along enterprise lines at present the CASA pilot group form their own council.
In summary, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots primary responsibility is to directly represent in industrial matters all pilots making a living out of flying in Australia other than Military and Qantas (International and Shorthaul) pilots. It is also very active in promoting flight safety and improving standards.
I feel it important to publish this statement as there are many misinformed and deliberately destructive comments/statements about the Federation and what we do.
We are not claiming to be perfect but what we are offering to those who want it is a pilot body focused only issues affecting your career as a professional pilot. We do not claim to be the guardians or be able to win every fight nor is the body ego driven by the employer relationship or type we fly.
We are open to all from the time you learn to fly to the highest airline positions you can attain as we consider you all professional pilots with a part to play in deciding the future of Australian aviation.
Our policies are structured to cover all companies and types of operations our members and industrial/technical staff has had significant involvement in the industry over several decades. We have continuing roles with the regulator.
The important fact is it is you as a professional pilot that makes the Federation not the other way around. So next time you want to criticise us please consider how active you have been on a committee, as a negotiator, representative at regulator forums or plainly as a member and work out if you can supply the solution or are in fact part of the problem?
Lawrie Cox
Manager – Industrial Relations
AFAP
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lawrie,
Not many of our younger pilots know of or even understand the function of the AFAP.
The AFAP has served me well for these past twenty years and I would feel uncomfortable and very vulnerable if it did not exist.
The staff at the AFAP are a great bunch of dedicated people. Everyone in the idustry should get to know about them
Cheers,
Bimmer
Not many of our younger pilots know of or even understand the function of the AFAP.
The AFAP has served me well for these past twenty years and I would feel uncomfortable and very vulnerable if it did not exist.
The staff at the AFAP are a great bunch of dedicated people. Everyone in the idustry should get to know about them
Cheers,
Bimmer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for AFAP
There was a thread here on Pprune the other day concerning AFAP Union ?/ membership drive ?/ It has gone.
So I ask is the following that was posted on another forum, is this AFAP policy or is it a "wind up"? (I add that the words "sterile environment" were used). May I quote your answer?
"A thread was running that was debating the pros and cons of Australia employing a system of 'see and be seen', to provide separation between airline, RPT and all other traffic, at certain airports.
My opinion ( the poster, not me), is that for the SAFETY of all, aircraft making leisure, and non-scheduled flights should be excluded from airspace within 10nm and below 5,000' for a period of 15 minutes prior to scheduled time of arrival (STA), and for 20 minutes after scheduled time of departure (STD) when an airline or RPT aircraft is scheduled for arrival and departure.
The concept of 'see and be seen' is less than 50% effective, at best, and more realistically has a 15% - 25% success rate.
This is totally unacceptable in my point of view, and amounts to Russian Roulette, using aircraft.
At work today, with visibility of around 30nm, TCAS and ATC advice, we were given 2 aircraft (and vice versa) as traffic.
The first was 1,000' below, 11 o'clock and ranged from 8 nm until passing directly below.
The second was initially 3,000' below, 1 o'clock, 15nm and climbing through our level as it crossed our track at approximately 30 degrees, coming within 5nm.
Good vis, TCAS readouts, and ATC advice.
In both cases, no crew members of the 3 aircraft made sightings.
'See and be seen' is not a SAFE method to use for aircraft separation involving 2 and more aircraft using a common airport, and those aircraft having mutual radio contact
So I ask is the following that was posted on another forum, is this AFAP policy or is it a "wind up"? (I add that the words "sterile environment" were used). May I quote your answer?
"A thread was running that was debating the pros and cons of Australia employing a system of 'see and be seen', to provide separation between airline, RPT and all other traffic, at certain airports.
My opinion ( the poster, not me), is that for the SAFETY of all, aircraft making leisure, and non-scheduled flights should be excluded from airspace within 10nm and below 5,000' for a period of 15 minutes prior to scheduled time of arrival (STA), and for 20 minutes after scheduled time of departure (STD) when an airline or RPT aircraft is scheduled for arrival and departure.
The concept of 'see and be seen' is less than 50% effective, at best, and more realistically has a 15% - 25% success rate.
This is totally unacceptable in my point of view, and amounts to Russian Roulette, using aircraft.
At work today, with visibility of around 30nm, TCAS and ATC advice, we were given 2 aircraft (and vice versa) as traffic.
The first was 1,000' below, 11 o'clock and ranged from 8 nm until passing directly below.
The second was initially 3,000' below, 1 o'clock, 15nm and climbing through our level as it crossed our track at approximately 30 degrees, coming within 5nm.
Good vis, TCAS readouts, and ATC advice.
In both cases, no crew members of the 3 aircraft made sightings.
'See and be seen' is not a SAFE method to use for aircraft separation involving 2 and more aircraft using a common airport, and those aircraft having mutual radio contact
Bob, I don't know who that poster is on PIREP as there is nothing in their profile to indicate if they are even a pilot. Brianh seems to think that they are just a stirrer and I guess he could be right. I am certain that this 'sterile environment' is not in any way the current AFAP stand - just someones idea (they may or may not be an AFAP member - who knows?) or an idea that has been suggested in the past.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In summary, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots primary responsibility is to directly represent in industrial matters all pilots making a living out of flying in Australia
The important fact is it is you as a professional pilot that makes the Federation not the other way around.
So next time you want to criticise us please consider how active you have been on a committee, as a negotiator, representative at regulator forums or plainly as a member and work out if you can supply the solution or are in fact part of the problem?
About time YOU started being part of the solution!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly Bob M have no idea of any post re policy as attached our technical people send time responding to many issus and these are regularly communicated to members on our webpage. I will say that our members in the Regional Airline sector were and still are concerned with the actions and tactics of some to change air space rules without considering the impact upon those using it.
VirginBlueDriver thanks for identifying one of the major problems. If pilots cannot use current organisations to achieve change what does trying to form a new one do? Waste a lot more resources which are better placed trying to do the job that the registered rules provide for that is looking after your members.
The attack that the Federation is close to management is the standard response of those who wish to disparage the efforts of those pilots who put in significant effort to get a positive outcome. It may come as huge surprise to you the fact that you ask for something in a negotiation does not automatically mean that you will get it without question.
Same goes for the direction of negotiations I understand a couple of you are frustrated because you feel you are not getting your own way; guess what that happens in every negotiation. Be it Virgin; Qantas; Jetstar; Eastern; Sunstate; REX; CHC Helicopters; Bristow Helicopters; and the list goes on. I can say it because I have been through that process time after time as have my colleagues and the pilot representatives who volunteer to do the job.
What is dissappointing is the attacks against those individuals who have been working long and hard to get a positive outcome having rocks thrown at them based on an agenda to set up a new group.
As for your solution someone thinks this is new?
An AIRC commissioner in the mid-ninties once commented that a new pilot group doing the same thing has as much relevance as the "Bunbury Basket Weavers Association".
I do not feel that we are full of our own self importance nor do we take our members for granted. But equally I will not trade on falsehoods to justify my existence as I have seen in the publications supporting an alternate body.
Please note that registration of an organisation takes a lot of money, time and you actually have to comply with some rules of the real world not just some wish lists (many of which we would all like).
The door is open to bring about unity of pilots that means a body involving all not just some and a protection that it cannot be dominated by one group but the actions of some leave little hope of that in the near future.
Lawrie Cox
VirginBlueDriver thanks for identifying one of the major problems. If pilots cannot use current organisations to achieve change what does trying to form a new one do? Waste a lot more resources which are better placed trying to do the job that the registered rules provide for that is looking after your members.
The attack that the Federation is close to management is the standard response of those who wish to disparage the efforts of those pilots who put in significant effort to get a positive outcome. It may come as huge surprise to you the fact that you ask for something in a negotiation does not automatically mean that you will get it without question.
Same goes for the direction of negotiations I understand a couple of you are frustrated because you feel you are not getting your own way; guess what that happens in every negotiation. Be it Virgin; Qantas; Jetstar; Eastern; Sunstate; REX; CHC Helicopters; Bristow Helicopters; and the list goes on. I can say it because I have been through that process time after time as have my colleagues and the pilot representatives who volunteer to do the job.
What is dissappointing is the attacks against those individuals who have been working long and hard to get a positive outcome having rocks thrown at them based on an agenda to set up a new group.
As for your solution someone thinks this is new?
An AIRC commissioner in the mid-ninties once commented that a new pilot group doing the same thing has as much relevance as the "Bunbury Basket Weavers Association".
I do not feel that we are full of our own self importance nor do we take our members for granted. But equally I will not trade on falsehoods to justify my existence as I have seen in the publications supporting an alternate body.
Please note that registration of an organisation takes a lot of money, time and you actually have to comply with some rules of the real world not just some wish lists (many of which we would all like).
The door is open to bring about unity of pilots that means a body involving all not just some and a protection that it cannot be dominated by one group but the actions of some leave little hope of that in the near future.
Lawrie Cox
Last edited by Lawrie Cox; 21st May 2007 at 05:20.
Lawrie,
Quick question-
Was not the AFAP the first organisation to accept terms and conditions SUBSTANTIALLY below the then market standard for airline pilots, when it negotiated the employment terms for Compass 1 and 2 and Virgin Blue?
Has this not had the effect of seriously lowering the market, with the now inevitable downward pressure on all pilots in the country as evidenced by Jetstar and the wages on offer from the likes of Tiger?
Quick question-
Was not the AFAP the first organisation to accept terms and conditions SUBSTANTIALLY below the then market standard for airline pilots, when it negotiated the employment terms for Compass 1 and 2 and Virgin Blue?
Has this not had the effect of seriously lowering the market, with the now inevitable downward pressure on all pilots in the country as evidenced by Jetstar and the wages on offer from the likes of Tiger?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIZ
We negotiated rates that one our members were prepared to be employed for and two as a number were start up carriers were on offer. The market standard you refer to of course was not negotiated but offered to pilots who wished to join carriers at that time recruiting and seemed in need of offering a premium to attract recruits.
The same stands now for example if enough people sit on their hands then the offer must go up.
There is a big difference in the Industrial systems pre the abolishment of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and now.
The introduction of LCC was always going to have this sort of impact when we met with the Qantas pilots several years ago we suggested that we needed a strategy to protect the future but were informed that it would never happen to us. Lest we forget.
What many also choose to forget in attacking Jetstar is that 80% of the pilot group endorsed the wide body amendment, as such the Federation endorsed the wishes of its members. Or are you suggesting that we dictate to them what they can or cannot accept?
As for Tiger all they have to do is offer $20K more than Jetstar and you will see a mass exodus of endorsed drivers next day.
Lawrie Cox
We negotiated rates that one our members were prepared to be employed for and two as a number were start up carriers were on offer. The market standard you refer to of course was not negotiated but offered to pilots who wished to join carriers at that time recruiting and seemed in need of offering a premium to attract recruits.
The same stands now for example if enough people sit on their hands then the offer must go up.
There is a big difference in the Industrial systems pre the abolishment of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and now.
The introduction of LCC was always going to have this sort of impact when we met with the Qantas pilots several years ago we suggested that we needed a strategy to protect the future but were informed that it would never happen to us. Lest we forget.
What many also choose to forget in attacking Jetstar is that 80% of the pilot group endorsed the wide body amendment, as such the Federation endorsed the wishes of its members. Or are you suggesting that we dictate to them what they can or cannot accept?
As for Tiger all they have to do is offer $20K more than Jetstar and you will see a mass exodus of endorsed drivers next day.
Lawrie Cox
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Federation endorsed the wishes of its members. Or are you suggesting that we dictate to them what they can or cannot accept?
Wouldn't that indicate to you that you in fact DO NOT endorse the wishes of your members?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawrie, when you start consulting with your members (remember them, the ones who pay the 1%) first as to what their problems are and how you can assist in representing them instead of your current approach of liasing with management first then you may regain some respect.
You are losing all that the federation has stood for over many years with your current "management will never agree to that" approach.
Get back to the basics Lawrie, your survival will come automatically when you do, your (fence sitting) stance over the last few years while attempting to shore up your survival has you losing credibility and respect on both sides.
Ahab
You are losing all that the federation has stood for over many years with your current "management will never agree to that" approach.
Get back to the basics Lawrie, your survival will come automatically when you do, your (fence sitting) stance over the last few years while attempting to shore up your survival has you losing credibility and respect on both sides.
Ahab
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next Generation
Yes I will correct you as the document presented was the outcome of the talks it was not endorsed as the preferred outcome by the Federation or the negotiators.
Again some pilots either deliberately or naively forget under the Act we are required to accept the document as being that reached before it can go out to vote not something we go and say you have to accept or reject. The pilots at Virgin voted it down and back to the table we went. It is in the Virgin pilot hands whether the document gets voted up.
As a parallel at Eastern we produced a document that was an outcome, I and the negotiators could read that we had reached an end. The pilots voted it down around 75% with encouragment for those wished to split away from the Federation. In the end a renewed document correcting typos and clarifying three clauses was voted up by over 80% but we lost the backpay which the company gained a net benefit of around $1million. The pilots lost significantly through a disasterous exercise in trying to split our resources.
Ahab
I sure it will not surprise you that the comment is not based on any fact. We have and will continue to respond to members views. Just because your view is not accepted does not mean it is not considered. That is why we have pilots at the table and they provide the direction. Yes I and others will often comment that some items are unable to be achieved but they are still put if that is what the negotiators wish to push. As for your comment about consulting management first total rubbish.
Kelly
No the Federation only has membership to IFALPA to which it is a founding member.
VBdriver
Thanks for the cynical response but I suggest the obvious we belong to our members at Virgin Blue/Jetstar/Eastern/Sunstate/National Jet/REX/Air North/CHC/Bristow/Jayrow/Flight schools/Charter ops/Aerial Ag/RFDS/EMS ops/Police and so on. All members of the profession of air pilotage in Australia by choice not by exclusion.
Yes I will correct you as the document presented was the outcome of the talks it was not endorsed as the preferred outcome by the Federation or the negotiators.
Again some pilots either deliberately or naively forget under the Act we are required to accept the document as being that reached before it can go out to vote not something we go and say you have to accept or reject. The pilots at Virgin voted it down and back to the table we went. It is in the Virgin pilot hands whether the document gets voted up.
As a parallel at Eastern we produced a document that was an outcome, I and the negotiators could read that we had reached an end. The pilots voted it down around 75% with encouragment for those wished to split away from the Federation. In the end a renewed document correcting typos and clarifying three clauses was voted up by over 80% but we lost the backpay which the company gained a net benefit of around $1million. The pilots lost significantly through a disasterous exercise in trying to split our resources.
Ahab
I sure it will not surprise you that the comment is not based on any fact. We have and will continue to respond to members views. Just because your view is not accepted does not mean it is not considered. That is why we have pilots at the table and they provide the direction. Yes I and others will often comment that some items are unable to be achieved but they are still put if that is what the negotiators wish to push. As for your comment about consulting management first total rubbish.
Kelly
No the Federation only has membership to IFALPA to which it is a founding member.
VBdriver
Thanks for the cynical response but I suggest the obvious we belong to our members at Virgin Blue/Jetstar/Eastern/Sunstate/National Jet/REX/Air North/CHC/Bristow/Jayrow/Flight schools/Charter ops/Aerial Ag/RFDS/EMS ops/Police and so on. All members of the profession of air pilotage in Australia by choice not by exclusion.
Last edited by Lawrie Cox; 21st May 2007 at 05:21.
All members of the profession of air pilotage in Australia by choice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIZ
Yes I can confirm that subtle encouragement to join was done many years ago and even then it was not compulsory but a union member could choose not to fly with somebody who wanted all the benefits but was too lousy to put his/her hand in their pocket and be part of a solid group. Even the Companies saw the benefits of dealing with their pilots as a group but alas that was when you had real managers not the fluff and bulldust of today who consider themselves masters.
This process has fallen away and now is illegal under the workplace relations laws.
It actually benefitted a vast number of pilots over the years and certainly produced better outcomes than those being acheived under the constantly changing industrial landscape. For those who continue the push for further splitting of pilot groups please read a little history and see what can be achieved working inside the tent rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
If you cannot be bothered reviewing history then expect to make the same mistakes again and again.
Sorry my point about choice is that we as an organisation are continuing to grow, despite some of the earlier comments, and that will only continue whilst we continue to aim to bring pilots together in one group not allowing one area to dominate the direction/agenda to the disadvantage of the wider group. If we look after the new generation at the beginning of their career then the future will look after itself well after we are gone.
Lawrie Cox
Yes I can confirm that subtle encouragement to join was done many years ago and even then it was not compulsory but a union member could choose not to fly with somebody who wanted all the benefits but was too lousy to put his/her hand in their pocket and be part of a solid group. Even the Companies saw the benefits of dealing with their pilots as a group but alas that was when you had real managers not the fluff and bulldust of today who consider themselves masters.
This process has fallen away and now is illegal under the workplace relations laws.
It actually benefitted a vast number of pilots over the years and certainly produced better outcomes than those being acheived under the constantly changing industrial landscape. For those who continue the push for further splitting of pilot groups please read a little history and see what can be achieved working inside the tent rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
If you cannot be bothered reviewing history then expect to make the same mistakes again and again.
Sorry my point about choice is that we as an organisation are continuing to grow, despite some of the earlier comments, and that will only continue whilst we continue to aim to bring pilots together in one group not allowing one area to dominate the direction/agenda to the disadvantage of the wider group. If we look after the new generation at the beginning of their career then the future will look after itself well after we are gone.
Lawrie Cox
Yes I can confirm that subtle encouragement to join was done many years ago and even then it was not compulsory
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIZ
As I said above the employers in those days saw benefits in dealing with a united body and did not wish to create disputes. Their choice at the time and was the opposite in the early ninties.
Lawrie Cox
As I said above the employers in those days saw benefits in dealing with a united body and did not wish to create disputes. Their choice at the time and was the opposite in the early ninties.
Lawrie Cox
I'm sorry, Lawrie, but if you want to be taken seriously , revisionist, rose-tinten nonsense will not help your credability.
You firstly deny compulsory unionism existed. Now you try and say it was the Employers idea!!
Like many industries in that era, the Airlines had compulsory unionism because the unions imposed it through industrial muscle.
If the airlines had tried to change that at any time whilst the AFAP was representing the pilots (up until the time it became illegal), it would have resulted in aggressive industrial action.
I'm not passing judgment on the policy. It was common enough in that era.
But lets not go re-writting history, OK?
You firstly deny compulsory unionism existed. Now you try and say it was the Employers idea!!
Like many industries in that era, the Airlines had compulsory unionism because the unions imposed it through industrial muscle.
If the airlines had tried to change that at any time whilst the AFAP was representing the pilots (up until the time it became illegal), it would have resulted in aggressive industrial action.
I'm not passing judgment on the policy. It was common enough in that era.
But lets not go re-writting history, OK?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIZ
You have me wrong I am not denying that pressure was applied by virtue of pilots indicating who they wished to fly with and yes occassionally it went to the point of action.
The fact is if the employer stated to you in the interview that membership was required then that was part of the conditions that the company was prepared to engage you on. I still say that in every company there was not 100% as there was always 1 or 2.
Plus I am not trying to rewrite history you asked a question I have attempted to answer it also give me a little credit as I am not shying away from putting my name to all of these postings. How many others are prepared to do that?
Lawrie Cox
You have me wrong I am not denying that pressure was applied by virtue of pilots indicating who they wished to fly with and yes occassionally it went to the point of action.
The fact is if the employer stated to you in the interview that membership was required then that was part of the conditions that the company was prepared to engage you on. I still say that in every company there was not 100% as there was always 1 or 2.
Plus I am not trying to rewrite history you asked a question I have attempted to answer it also give me a little credit as I am not shying away from putting my name to all of these postings. How many others are prepared to do that?
Lawrie Cox
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawrie conveniently chooses to forget that he and Terry helped destroy the careers of some 1400 pilots a few years ago. Whilst he and Terry may like to deny the past there are many of us who cannot. He and Terry are still employed in the aviation work place whilst many of us who had our careers destroyed in 89' have never worked in aviation since.
I have a problem taking anything that he or Terry says seriously.
I suggest you do the same
I have a problem taking anything that he or Terry says seriously.
I suggest you do the same
Last edited by amos2; 21st May 2007 at 10:40.