All under control MB??
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ringin,
In an earlier post, you stated that there had been a "mass exodus of staff", which was "indicative of the relationship between the current management team (MB) and the rest of the staff".
Could you please elaborate on this statement, and give a few examples.
Re my question on the $20K salary increase:
From OAH's comments, it appears that he is trying to lay the ground work for the reps to take the credit for the increase, should it occur. I don't see how the reps can take credit for it - hence my question.
In an earlier post, you stated that there had been a "mass exodus of staff", which was "indicative of the relationship between the current management team (MB) and the rest of the staff".
Could you please elaborate on this statement, and give a few examples.
Re my question on the $20K salary increase:
From OAH's comments, it appears that he is trying to lay the ground work for the reps to take the credit for the increase, should it occur. I don't see how the reps can take credit for it - hence my question.
APMR,
I think you'll find that the $20k is a composite figure for you. The reps were asking for a percentage pay rise and also allowances for different contracts.
Word/rumour is that last Monday(08/10/07) there was a management and pilot management meeting(unsure about pilot representation at the meeting/ this I'm sure will lead you to assume it's a management driven initiative not a reaction to what the reps were asking for/negotiating) to respond to the growing problem of staff recruitment/retention; the figure comes from across the board $10k and NTAMs $10k($20k to you, APMR); Flight Cal. $10k +$15k($25k) to bring them up to $90k, which is still $5k short of the proposed figure put to the company in the negoiations. I believe other allowances are also to be increased.
So, yes I can say that the reps were asking for a $20k payrise before the vote, when you add up the composite figures; this is clearly a management response not an initiative.
I think you'll find that the $20k is a composite figure for you. The reps were asking for a percentage pay rise and also allowances for different contracts.
Word/rumour is that last Monday(08/10/07) there was a management and pilot management meeting(unsure about pilot representation at the meeting/ this I'm sure will lead you to assume it's a management driven initiative not a reaction to what the reps were asking for/negotiating) to respond to the growing problem of staff recruitment/retention; the figure comes from across the board $10k and NTAMs $10k($20k to you, APMR); Flight Cal. $10k +$15k($25k) to bring them up to $90k, which is still $5k short of the proposed figure put to the company in the negoiations. I believe other allowances are also to be increased.
So, yes I can say that the reps were asking for a $20k payrise before the vote, when you add up the composite figures; this is clearly a management response not an initiative.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaeagle109,
Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, with me being me, I need a more concrete set of numbers to show how the $20K was being sought by the reps.
You have gone part of the way, but the full answer would show all the things being pursued by the reps and how those things add up to around $20K.
Thanks.
Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, with me being me, I need a more concrete set of numbers to show how the $20K was being sought by the reps.
You have gone part of the way, but the full answer would show all the things being pursued by the reps and how those things add up to around $20K.
Thanks.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: home
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's Right!!!
Don't know why everyone keeps bagging dear old APMR, he is so right!!!!
$20K increase IS a management initiative.
In 2005/06, those useless Rep's tried to negotiate an agreement that would have seen APMR's current salary increased by $26K.
Those useless bloody Rep's, they should have only tried for $20k to keep APMR happy.
$20K increase IS a management initiative.
In 2005/06, those useless Rep's tried to negotiate an agreement that would have seen APMR's current salary increased by $26K.
Those useless bloody Rep's, they should have only tried for $20k to keep APMR happy.
APMR,
Well, I'm sure that Olderairhead will be able to provide you with the facts and figures if you really need them to believe that the reps were asking for payrises.
As an aside, as to your need for a "concrete set of numbers to show how the $20K was being sought by the reps." Why is this so important to you? Is it not possible for you to believe that the pilot reps have worked extremely hard for a very long period( longer that you have been with the company; 21 Nov '05 start for you I believe) to achieve an improvement in the pilots salaries? It seems to me that most of your angst over the whole vote/representation by the reps/communications is that you haven't been personally consulted over every item/issue that has taken place or been given a chance to vote on the pilot reps(are we to have a situation where a new vote is held every time a new pilot joins the company?) and you seem to have a belief that nobody but the company management could possibly want to improve pilot conditions.
As has been pointed out previously, lots of these negoiations happen behind the scenes, not all the twists and turns of the negotiations can or will be communicated. The pilot reps were elected by the majority of pilots employed by the company at the time negotiations commenced(before you joined); this is done with the good faith that these pilots will work for the majority, not just themselves and these guys have worked damned hard to achieve a result that now appears to be coming to fruition. I reckon that you should be thankful that there are people(fellow pilots) that will volunteer to put in the personal time and effort to work/fight for the greater good(albeit, yes, agreed they will profit as well).
Is it not possible for you to acknowledge that the coming payrise is a result of some effort by the pilot reps without every little detail being presented to you? If not, I fear for you, you have no faith in your fellow pilots.
Seaeagle109
"A man's character is his fate"-Heraclitus(an old Greek guy)
Well, I'm sure that Olderairhead will be able to provide you with the facts and figures if you really need them to believe that the reps were asking for payrises.
As an aside, as to your need for a "concrete set of numbers to show how the $20K was being sought by the reps." Why is this so important to you? Is it not possible for you to believe that the pilot reps have worked extremely hard for a very long period( longer that you have been with the company; 21 Nov '05 start for you I believe) to achieve an improvement in the pilots salaries? It seems to me that most of your angst over the whole vote/representation by the reps/communications is that you haven't been personally consulted over every item/issue that has taken place or been given a chance to vote on the pilot reps(are we to have a situation where a new vote is held every time a new pilot joins the company?) and you seem to have a belief that nobody but the company management could possibly want to improve pilot conditions.
As has been pointed out previously, lots of these negoiations happen behind the scenes, not all the twists and turns of the negotiations can or will be communicated. The pilot reps were elected by the majority of pilots employed by the company at the time negotiations commenced(before you joined); this is done with the good faith that these pilots will work for the majority, not just themselves and these guys have worked damned hard to achieve a result that now appears to be coming to fruition. I reckon that you should be thankful that there are people(fellow pilots) that will volunteer to put in the personal time and effort to work/fight for the greater good(albeit, yes, agreed they will profit as well).
Is it not possible for you to acknowledge that the coming payrise is a result of some effort by the pilot reps without every little detail being presented to you? If not, I fear for you, you have no faith in your fellow pilots.
Seaeagle109
"A man's character is his fate"-Heraclitus(an old Greek guy)
Last edited by Seaeagle109; 15th Oct 2007 at 23:54.
On the contrary
ABX, this is the BEST group of guys I have ever worked with. Nice try at a smart remark. 
Read the thread. One stands apart. There's no fighting like kids.
Contribute something worthwhile or go away.
CR.
Read the thread. One stands apart. There's no fighting like kids.
Contribute something worthwhile or go away.
CR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APMR are you just plain lazy?
Get the seniority list from 6, 12, 15 months ago and see which pilots are no longer there.
Also do some home work and see which admin type staff are no longer there.
And don't just look at Pearl. Also look at Aeropearl and Aerorescue.
Then when you have found those answers also look to see when it all started to happen.
I know you will need some assistance so I will give you a hint.
His first name is Michael and his second name is Bitzer.
I know it will be tough for you but see how you go.
And just in case you have trouble with those clues you could always call your mate MB. I am sure he will provide the answers that you want to hear.
As they say in the classics, why let facts get in the way of a good story.
Please keep us informed on your progress as we all need a good laugh.
Get the seniority list from 6, 12, 15 months ago and see which pilots are no longer there.
Also do some home work and see which admin type staff are no longer there.
And don't just look at Pearl. Also look at Aeropearl and Aerorescue.
Then when you have found those answers also look to see when it all started to happen.
I know you will need some assistance so I will give you a hint.
His first name is Michael and his second name is Bitzer.
I know it will be tough for you but see how you go.
And just in case you have trouble with those clues you could always call your mate MB. I am sure he will provide the answers that you want to hear.
As they say in the classics, why let facts get in the way of a good story.
Please keep us informed on your progress as we all need a good laugh.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR,
I have followed this thread since the day it started and you are right, "one stands apart", however others keep the argument alive by responding to her, you're all simply airing your dirty laundry in public.
It was a crack at a smart remark, but I stand by it.
I hope you get crewed with APMR!
I have followed this thread since the day it started and you are right, "one stands apart", however others keep the argument alive by responding to her, you're all simply airing your dirty laundry in public.
It was a crack at a smart remark, but I stand by it.
I hope you get crewed with APMR!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaeagle109,
My apologies for taking a while to reply.
I can believe the reps were seeking pay rises - that is what they do, after all, but to suggest the idea behind the pay rise the management seems to have in mind was planted by the reps is just too fanciful. Could management have come up with this idea all by themselves?
We all know that management have a single-minded, business-oriented way of looking at things. If considering how much of a pay rise to give, the first thing they do is estimate how much of a raise the company can afford. The second thing is to estimate just how much of a raise would be required to achieve the particular objective.
If the second figure is greater than the first, they will reassess the first, more accurately, then reduce it a bit, then offer that to the pilots. If the second figure is less than the first, they will then reduce that second figure by a carefully considered amount, then offer that figure to the pilots.
To suggest the management would just bypass these two steps and jump straight to a figure put forward 9 months earlier by a group of reps that are "out of touch" and "more interested in feathering their own nests" is utterly ludicrous. If the manager was 10 years old and on his first management assignment, then I could believe it.
I can believe that the opinions expressed by the reps would be used by the management when making the various assessments but the weighting placed on those opinions would be low (think used car salesman offering his opinion on the value of the car he is trying to sell you).
From OAH's statements, it appears he wants the reps to take the credit for the $20K rise (assuming it happens). I am quite prepared to give them that credit, provided a strong case can be made that their negotiations and the rise are linked.
Why do I insist on a "strong case"? Because I do not trust the reps. How could I, or anyone, trust them after they:
1. Supported and encouraged the notion that the company had covertly made "unnegotiated changes" to the CA proposal the pilots thought they were voting on. This alleged act by the company was spun as "trying to rip the pilots off - a dirty and underhanded act that is typical for this company". The reality was that there was nothing sinister in the company's actions - how could there be when most of the "changes" were actually beneficial to the pilots? I will go into this a bit more in a future post.
And,
2. Endorsed and upheld the AFAP produced "comparison document". For those that have forgotten, this was the list of all the "unnegotiated changes" that were "covertly" made by the company to the draft CA document. This "comparison document" was chock full of lies and exaggerations and was obviously intended to scare the pilots into voting NO.
That they engaged in and encouraged these acts of deception is disgraceful conduct for a group that is in a position of trust. How can they claim to be acting in the pilot's interests when they are pulling the wool over their eyes? They were not representing the pilots, but rather, holding them in contempt.
I suspect however, that these acts were actually the brainchild of the AFAP and concede that, in the rush to get a document of theirs into the envelope that was being sent out to the pilots, the reps may have missed, until it was too late, the opportunity to look at exactly what the AFAP were saying, and how they were saying it. The reps urgently need to come clean on this.
Actually, I didn't mind not being consulted and not being given regular updates. My attitude was that, upon learning how much effort had gone into the negotiations, and over how long they had been going on, the proposed terms and conditions were probably about as good as they could be.
I knew there would be some things I didn't like, but being the pragmatic individual I am, had decided to vote YES from the first day I was with the company.
My statements in the earlier posts about representation were related to the management's view that the reps were not representative. I have spoken to the management several times about the reps and can tell you that they are strongly of this opinion. But I don't only speak to the management - after speaking to one of the reps and hearing his idea of "representation" I can say that I share the management's opinion!
I don't disagree that they have worked hard and deserve recognition for their efforts.
My apologies for taking a while to reply.
Well, I'm sure that Olderairhead will be able to provide you with the facts and figures if you really need them to believe that the reps were asking for payrises.
We all know that management have a single-minded, business-oriented way of looking at things. If considering how much of a pay rise to give, the first thing they do is estimate how much of a raise the company can afford. The second thing is to estimate just how much of a raise would be required to achieve the particular objective.
If the second figure is greater than the first, they will reassess the first, more accurately, then reduce it a bit, then offer that to the pilots. If the second figure is less than the first, they will then reduce that second figure by a carefully considered amount, then offer that figure to the pilots.
To suggest the management would just bypass these two steps and jump straight to a figure put forward 9 months earlier by a group of reps that are "out of touch" and "more interested in feathering their own nests" is utterly ludicrous. If the manager was 10 years old and on his first management assignment, then I could believe it.
I can believe that the opinions expressed by the reps would be used by the management when making the various assessments but the weighting placed on those opinions would be low (think used car salesman offering his opinion on the value of the car he is trying to sell you).
... as to your need for a "concrete set of numbers to show how the $20K was being sought by the reps." Why is this so important to you?
Why do I insist on a "strong case"? Because I do not trust the reps. How could I, or anyone, trust them after they:
1. Supported and encouraged the notion that the company had covertly made "unnegotiated changes" to the CA proposal the pilots thought they were voting on. This alleged act by the company was spun as "trying to rip the pilots off - a dirty and underhanded act that is typical for this company". The reality was that there was nothing sinister in the company's actions - how could there be when most of the "changes" were actually beneficial to the pilots? I will go into this a bit more in a future post.
And,
2. Endorsed and upheld the AFAP produced "comparison document". For those that have forgotten, this was the list of all the "unnegotiated changes" that were "covertly" made by the company to the draft CA document. This "comparison document" was chock full of lies and exaggerations and was obviously intended to scare the pilots into voting NO.
That they engaged in and encouraged these acts of deception is disgraceful conduct for a group that is in a position of trust. How can they claim to be acting in the pilot's interests when they are pulling the wool over their eyes? They were not representing the pilots, but rather, holding them in contempt.
I suspect however, that these acts were actually the brainchild of the AFAP and concede that, in the rush to get a document of theirs into the envelope that was being sent out to the pilots, the reps may have missed, until it was too late, the opportunity to look at exactly what the AFAP were saying, and how they were saying it. The reps urgently need to come clean on this.
It seems to me that most of your angst over the whole vote/representation by the reps/communications is that you haven't been personally consulted over every item/issue that has taken place ...
I knew there would be some things I didn't like, but being the pragmatic individual I am, had decided to vote YES from the first day I was with the company.
My statements in the earlier posts about representation were related to the management's view that the reps were not representative. I have spoken to the management several times about the reps and can tell you that they are strongly of this opinion. But I don't only speak to the management - after speaking to one of the reps and hearing his idea of "representation" I can say that I share the management's opinion!
... and these guys have worked damned hard to achieve a result that now appears to be coming to fruition.
Last edited by APMR; 16th Oct 2007 at 16:58.
APMR,
So, what this all boils down to for you is this:
1/ You don't believe the reps are truely representing the pilots; well, I and most others disagree. As is generally the case in our society, the majority wins; you can rail against it all you want but eventually the majority wins.
2/ In your mind, the figure that's rumoured to be forthcoming is only a product of the managements business skills with no imput from the pilot reps during the negotiations or from other pilots during the questionaire or roadshow. Strange how the Management and pilot rep/ line pilot requested figures are similar isn't it? I'm sure that figures will be provided when OAH has the time.
3/ The AFAP are behind all the evils of the pilot world and have a consipicy theory/evil intent in comparing a negotiated(but unsupported by the pilot reps) document to the one sent out vote. The facts are that the document was changed, whether for the good or otherwise of the pilots is a matter of opinion, but the document definitely was changed; even you have stated that you did a document comparison and found changes. On the AFAP, well, strangely they seem to have helped large numbers of pilots over the years to achieve pay and conditions improvements, represented them in disputes, defended/helped their defence in matters with CASA(and its predecessors) and generally done what it members wanted, as it is run by pilots.
Mate, all I can say is get over it, you supported a document that the majority didn't, tough luck but you lose; you(and the management) don't believe the reps are truely representative, well they are doing/have done what the pilots want, deal with it; the AFAP, well everyone's entitled to their opinion but there still appears to be people who want to join and use the resourses of a pilot run organisation and receive the benefits of membership to our combined professional body and union.
So, what this all boils down to for you is this:
1/ You don't believe the reps are truely representing the pilots; well, I and most others disagree. As is generally the case in our society, the majority wins; you can rail against it all you want but eventually the majority wins.
2/ In your mind, the figure that's rumoured to be forthcoming is only a product of the managements business skills with no imput from the pilot reps during the negotiations or from other pilots during the questionaire or roadshow. Strange how the Management and pilot rep/ line pilot requested figures are similar isn't it? I'm sure that figures will be provided when OAH has the time.
3/ The AFAP are behind all the evils of the pilot world and have a consipicy theory/evil intent in comparing a negotiated(but unsupported by the pilot reps) document to the one sent out vote. The facts are that the document was changed, whether for the good or otherwise of the pilots is a matter of opinion, but the document definitely was changed; even you have stated that you did a document comparison and found changes. On the AFAP, well, strangely they seem to have helped large numbers of pilots over the years to achieve pay and conditions improvements, represented them in disputes, defended/helped their defence in matters with CASA(and its predecessors) and generally done what it members wanted, as it is run by pilots.
Mate, all I can say is get over it, you supported a document that the majority didn't, tough luck but you lose; you(and the management) don't believe the reps are truely representative, well they are doing/have done what the pilots want, deal with it; the AFAP, well everyone's entitled to their opinion but there still appears to be people who want to join and use the resourses of a pilot run organisation and receive the benefits of membership to our combined professional body and union.
Last edited by Seaeagle109; 16th Oct 2007 at 21:33.
2. Endorsed and upheld the AFAP produced "comparison document". .....This "comparison document" was chock full of lies and exaggerations and was obviously intended to scare the pilots into voting NO.
That they engaged in and encouraged these acts of deception is disgraceful conduct for a group that is in a position of trust. How can they claim to be acting in the pilot's interests when they are pulling the wool over their eyes? They were not representing the pilots, but rather, holding them in contempt.
I suspect however, that these acts were actually the brainchild of the AFAP and concede that, in the rush to get a document of theirs into the envelope that was being sent out to the pilots, the reps may have missed, until it was too late, the opportunity to look at exactly what the AFAP were saying, and how they were saying it. The reps urgently need to come clean on this.
That they engaged in and encouraged these acts of deception is disgraceful conduct for a group that is in a position of trust. How can they claim to be acting in the pilot's interests when they are pulling the wool over their eyes? They were not representing the pilots, but rather, holding them in contempt.
I suspect however, that these acts were actually the brainchild of the AFAP and concede that, in the rush to get a document of theirs into the envelope that was being sent out to the pilots, the reps may have missed, until it was too late, the opportunity to look at exactly what the AFAP were saying, and how they were saying it. The reps urgently need to come clean on this.
The stuff you wrote above is a load of crap. You suspect this and you suspect that. Every time you make a post such as this it removes any element of doubt and confirms that you are a cretin.
I am sick of your ramblings and also take offence at many of your comments as they are insinuating that I am a liar.
I now endorse what others have been saying, put a lock on this thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest info from the Pearly Towers is that James P's alarm bells have started ringing rateher dramatically and so decided to send MB on a fact finding mission to Aeropearl and Aerorescue to try and ascertain why they are in so much trouble and unable to retain staff.
MB is suposed to be in Brisbane today to talk to the troops to try and find out what is going on. Only problem is that apparently there is no-one left to talk to. Rumour has it that the Brisbane manager is now off on stress leave after suffering chest pains last week plus ops manager quit, flight inspector quit, engineer quit, 2 pilots quit with more rumoured to follow.
But then again it shouldn't make any difference, MB has never bothered to listen to anyone else before so this should be a cruisey visit for him.
MB is suposed to be in Brisbane today to talk to the troops to try and find out what is going on. Only problem is that apparently there is no-one left to talk to. Rumour has it that the Brisbane manager is now off on stress leave after suffering chest pains last week plus ops manager quit, flight inspector quit, engineer quit, 2 pilots quit with more rumoured to follow.
But then again it shouldn't make any difference, MB has never bothered to listen to anyone else before so this should be a cruisey visit for him.
I can confirm this is true. Mark is off on indefinite stress leave after 3 days in hospital after calling for a taxi to take him to hospital when he suffered chest pains on the way home from work.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ringin,
Apologies for taking so long to reply.
What is it about MB that you think causes staff to want to move on?
Does he have overly high expectations of the staff, resulting in excessive pressure being brought to bear on those staff?
Or does he have a management style (e.g. autocratic) that results in excessive friction with his staff?
I do believe the departure of some high calibre staff (e.g. GJ) was due to differences with MB. Was the departure of GS in this same category?
Apologies for taking so long to reply.
What is it about MB that you think causes staff to want to move on?
Does he have overly high expectations of the staff, resulting in excessive pressure being brought to bear on those staff?
Or does he have a management style (e.g. autocratic) that results in excessive friction with his staff?
I do believe the departure of some high calibre staff (e.g. GJ) was due to differences with MB. Was the departure of GS in this same category?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're catching on slowly APMR, all of em!
Darwin, Perth and Brisbane have seen the loss of the most experienced pilots in the company. And when did it all start? You guessed it! With the arrival of MB!
Your second hypothisis is the most correct, friction.
Michael has his own agenda and no-one and I say again no-one is going to get in his way.
There is only one way, the MB way.
Don't like it....leave. They did and more will follow.
Darwin, Perth and Brisbane have seen the loss of the most experienced pilots in the company. And when did it all start? You guessed it! With the arrival of MB!
Your second hypothisis is the most correct, friction.
Michael has his own agenda and no-one and I say again no-one is going to get in his way.
There is only one way, the MB way.
Don't like it....leave. They did and more will follow.
Last edited by ringin; 19th Oct 2007 at 00:00.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaeagle109,
In my case, I would say they were about 30% representative. For other pilots, this figure could well have been higher. I'm sure some pilots would say they were 100% representative.
Just how representative they are is not that big a deal to me, but it is to the management, and all the blurb I have devoted to that subject has been related to the question as to why management have apparently made no effort to get back to the negotiating table. From my discussions with them, the main reason by far is that they consider the reps "not representative".
Instead of "not representative" you can substitute the words "insufficiently representative" as this is what is really meant.
I have never said anything like that. All I said was that I suspect they pulled a couple of swiftys just before we had our vote.
No argument that is was changed. It was always going to have those "final updates" made to it. When the management visited the bases a month or two before the vote, it was said by management, at that time, that the draft document being given to the pilots was not truly the final document they would be voting on.
And that was all perfectly logical, given that the draft document had no salary figures in it! In place of the dollar amounts were "$TBD". But also, JW asked if there were any things in the draft that we had a problem with because "he might be able to make a few changes". I did have a suggestion, related to flight and duty time limits and rang him back a few days later to pass that on.
So, it was always clear that there would be a "final update" to the draft document. That final update incorporated the salary amounts, and the remaining unnegotiated T&Cs.
They couldn't have included anything "unnegotiated" in the document could they? Every single T&C had to be spelt out, as the pilots would be voting on them. So, for areas where agreement had not yet been reached between management and the reps (e.g. loss of licence insurance), the management had to come up with something concrete to put in the document.
So, management came up with clauses for each of the remaining unnegotiated points and wrote them into the proposal document that we were given to vote on. Anything untoward or sinister about that?
To answer that question, you just need to look at exactly what the management came up with for each of those unnegotiated areas and then ask yourself whether the term/condition was detrimental, neutral or beneficial to the pilots.
But when you do that, you find that several of those things were more beneficial to the pilots than the corresponding term/condition in both the draft document and the 1999 CA that we are still working to, so it thus becomes very difficult to support the notion being pushed by the AFAP and reps that the changes were "a dirty and underhanded attempt to further rip the pilots off".
According to the analysis I did of the "comparison document" that was put out by the AFAP detailing all of these "changes", of the 23 changes:
1 change was "definitely detrimental" to pilots, 2 were "possibly detrimental" and 3 were an "improvement". 5 of the alleged changes weren't actually changes at all. The remaining 12 were classified by me under headings such as "misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to false conclusion", "barking at shadows" and "what are they on about?".
One improvement for the pilots was not mentioned at all, yet it clearly had been changed between the draft and proposed documents. That change was to do with the increase to area allowances.
The 3 changes that were listed, and were classified as improvements by me were:
1. The increase to the loss of licence insurance contribution by the company;
2. The "special premium" that would be paid to pilots on the calibration contract;
3. Improvements to the training salary and associated term;
As soon as it is shown that there is just one change that is beneficial to the pilots it becomes impossible to mount the argument that the management were up to no good. I have shown 3.
Seaeagle109 and Counter-rotation, I invite you to come out and state that:
1. You agree with the AFAP/rep line that the company was trying to pull a shonky by making the "unnegotiated changes" to the draft document, and
2. The "comparison document", detailing those "changes" was a fair, accurate and unbiased account of those changes.
1/ You don't believe the reps are truely representing the pilots;
Just how representative they are is not that big a deal to me, but it is to the management, and all the blurb I have devoted to that subject has been related to the question as to why management have apparently made no effort to get back to the negotiating table. From my discussions with them, the main reason by far is that they consider the reps "not representative".
Instead of "not representative" you can substitute the words "insufficiently representative" as this is what is really meant.
3/ The AFAP are behind all the evils of the pilot world ...
The facts are that the document was changed, whether for the good or otherwise of the pilots is a matter of opinion ...
And that was all perfectly logical, given that the draft document had no salary figures in it! In place of the dollar amounts were "$TBD". But also, JW asked if there were any things in the draft that we had a problem with because "he might be able to make a few changes". I did have a suggestion, related to flight and duty time limits and rang him back a few days later to pass that on.
So, it was always clear that there would be a "final update" to the draft document. That final update incorporated the salary amounts, and the remaining unnegotiated T&Cs.
They couldn't have included anything "unnegotiated" in the document could they? Every single T&C had to be spelt out, as the pilots would be voting on them. So, for areas where agreement had not yet been reached between management and the reps (e.g. loss of licence insurance), the management had to come up with something concrete to put in the document.
So, management came up with clauses for each of the remaining unnegotiated points and wrote them into the proposal document that we were given to vote on. Anything untoward or sinister about that?
To answer that question, you just need to look at exactly what the management came up with for each of those unnegotiated areas and then ask yourself whether the term/condition was detrimental, neutral or beneficial to the pilots.
But when you do that, you find that several of those things were more beneficial to the pilots than the corresponding term/condition in both the draft document and the 1999 CA that we are still working to, so it thus becomes very difficult to support the notion being pushed by the AFAP and reps that the changes were "a dirty and underhanded attempt to further rip the pilots off".
According to the analysis I did of the "comparison document" that was put out by the AFAP detailing all of these "changes", of the 23 changes:
1 change was "definitely detrimental" to pilots, 2 were "possibly detrimental" and 3 were an "improvement". 5 of the alleged changes weren't actually changes at all. The remaining 12 were classified by me under headings such as "misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to false conclusion", "barking at shadows" and "what are they on about?".
One improvement for the pilots was not mentioned at all, yet it clearly had been changed between the draft and proposed documents. That change was to do with the increase to area allowances.
The 3 changes that were listed, and were classified as improvements by me were:
1. The increase to the loss of licence insurance contribution by the company;
2. The "special premium" that would be paid to pilots on the calibration contract;
3. Improvements to the training salary and associated term;
As soon as it is shown that there is just one change that is beneficial to the pilots it becomes impossible to mount the argument that the management were up to no good. I have shown 3.
Seaeagle109 and Counter-rotation, I invite you to come out and state that:
1. You agree with the AFAP/rep line that the company was trying to pull a shonky by making the "unnegotiated changes" to the draft document, and
2. The "comparison document", detailing those "changes" was a fair, accurate and unbiased account of those changes.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ringin,
The obvious question: why is that people have to leave because they "don't agree" with MB?
In every workplace there are disagreements between managers and subordinates but only in very rare circumstances is the disagreement of such import that the subordinate feels he must move on.
Of the staff you are referring to, I didn't get to know them all that well in the short time that they and I were both working for the company but my impression of them was of highly devoted, highly experienced and highly valuable people - the "seniors" that maintain the standards and set the examples.
People like that tend to have some degree of "emotional attachment" to their company, so is it the case that such people are far more easily shattered than someone without that same level of emotional attachment?
The obvious question: why is that people have to leave because they "don't agree" with MB?
In every workplace there are disagreements between managers and subordinates but only in very rare circumstances is the disagreement of such import that the subordinate feels he must move on.
Of the staff you are referring to, I didn't get to know them all that well in the short time that they and I were both working for the company but my impression of them was of highly devoted, highly experienced and highly valuable people - the "seniors" that maintain the standards and set the examples.
People like that tend to have some degree of "emotional attachment" to their company, so is it the case that such people are far more easily shattered than someone without that same level of emotional attachment?