SQ Pilots - Give ALPAS Your View
Guest
Posts: n/a
What started out to be a very good interaction and change of ideas was completely ruined by the article of our friend sneaky-cobra. I beleive that we should try to completely ignore these outbursts of stupidity and venom and keep on the ball with what we started. The experience from guys like Titan, Gladiator and others that left and got a good "outside" view should be used. If we ignore the obvious idiots and stirrers (hope this is English) this is again PPRUNE at is best.
Guest
Posts: n/a
747400CA
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, SIA flt ops management is attempting to pay new entrants more than incumbents! As you can imagine this is having quite an effect on flight crew morale.
sneaky_cobra
I noted with some interest, your contribution of 27 February, in which you mentioned that ex-pat pilots in SQ were “90% leftovers from other airlines from diffrent (sic) parts of the globe,Either (sic) kicked out from their country(Aussie) or have left because of poor salaries”.
Maybe you could explain to me why, if they are such a desperately sub-standard group, SIA took them on in the first place and why, if SIA excoriate them to the extent you imply, such a worthless group is bonded and bank guranteed to the fearsome levels currently stipulated (circa S$300,000/S$45,000)?
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, SIA flt ops management is attempting to pay new entrants more than incumbents! As you can imagine this is having quite an effect on flight crew morale.
sneaky_cobra
I noted with some interest, your contribution of 27 February, in which you mentioned that ex-pat pilots in SQ were “90% leftovers from other airlines from diffrent (sic) parts of the globe,Either (sic) kicked out from their country(Aussie) or have left because of poor salaries”.
Maybe you could explain to me why, if they are such a desperately sub-standard group, SIA took them on in the first place and why, if SIA excoriate them to the extent you imply, such a worthless group is bonded and bank guranteed to the fearsome levels currently stipulated (circa S$300,000/S$45,000)?
Guest
Posts: n/a
In my opinion I don't think the ALPA-S or its membership is gonna' get any thing out of the IAC. Atleast I have not seen in my little experience that in any country the IAC has gone in favour of the labour. Rather, the IAC has always favoured the Management. This is the trend in most of the democratic world. I don't know what kind of govt. rules there in S'pore, whether it is dictat. or democracy.
I feel the best ALPA-S can do is...
bring the membership together, guide them how to agitate, I am sure there are many ways to express discontantment with out going on strike.
Don't forget that your members controls more than 50% of SIA's operating cost interm of fuel. You can well imagine if the pilots' moral in SIA continue to remain at the "Nadir", in the days to come if every one decides to waste 500 kgs of fuel per day(which is not difficult), what will be the bottom line of the company. But this should have approval from the ALPA-S.
Secondly if ALPA-S can't agitate then it should accept what the management is offering to its pilots through bilateral negotiation. Still there is time and the management can be forced to come to the negotiating table. ALPA-S will do better by coming out of the IAC. The executive council in future should take its own independent decision and should not get misguided by any other coterie of people.
I feel the best ALPA-S can do is...
bring the membership together, guide them how to agitate, I am sure there are many ways to express discontantment with out going on strike.
Don't forget that your members controls more than 50% of SIA's operating cost interm of fuel. You can well imagine if the pilots' moral in SIA continue to remain at the "Nadir", in the days to come if every one decides to waste 500 kgs of fuel per day(which is not difficult), what will be the bottom line of the company. But this should have approval from the ALPA-S.
Secondly if ALPA-S can't agitate then it should accept what the management is offering to its pilots through bilateral negotiation. Still there is time and the management can be forced to come to the negotiating table. ALPA-S will do better by coming out of the IAC. The executive council in future should take its own independent decision and should not get misguided by any other coterie of people.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I write as a local pilot. Having followed with interest the many & diverse views on this thread, I'd like to put it to all & sundry that this is not the time (is there ever a time?) to play the local vs expat card. It is apparent to me that most posters here are, for lack of a better word, in the 'expat' category, and to you I'd say that (for what it may be worth) I for one have never played this silly local/expat thing. We are all colleagues within the same profession with the same standards expected of us irrespective of where we come from. And we are entitled to our views - Cobra included - but we don't all have to agree with each & every person here. I submit that in this current climate of mounting pilot/company tensions, the single most important issue is where we, the SIA pilots, go from here viz the court procedings. I do not have all the answers, but this much I'll say - charging headlong into some kind of self imposed industrial action does not seem to be the wisest of things to do. Singapore does not take kindly to things like this, & while I can already envisage a chorus of boos & jeers at me for adopting such a 'lame' stand, I hope many will be able to understand that it is out of self preservation that I say it. Many in SIA have the option of returning to their home country where, no doubt, there will be employment opportunities available to them; but to the Singaporean pilot, this all important avenue is not available to him. SIA management knows this & apparently uses this adeptly. So far, only one local pilot - a Capt on 744 - has actually left for greener shores (China Airlines). But unless & until this becomes a trend amongst even the local pilots, I'm afraid I don't think that management will take too much notice of the rantings. So, back to the original point - are there any less confrontational methods out there, which we might adopt to achieve the same goal of reaching a satisfactory deal with the management?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Santa
I agree entirely. How about looking at Insider107's suggestion when he started this thread? I quote the relevant pieces:
"So, maybe some real politik is in order if the ALPAS President and the Executive Council cares to consider the merits of the following "win win" suggestions:
Call the Registrar, meet him personally and tell him that ALPAS will sign the CA on the absolute basis that it is dated 21 Nov 1998 to sequence expiry of the last CA on 20 Nov 1998 - entirely logical as pay is proposed to be backdated to this date. Otherwise, no deal. The Registrar will be powerfully persuaded that ALPAS is seriously intent on maintaining a "harmonious industrial climate" and is "going the extra mile" to attain it.
Explain to the membership that this is a smart move for all concerned - ALPAS, SQ, Singapore Government as:
· The membership gets the back pay plus a raise - the latter can be considered "interim"
· Goodwill is generated with Lt Gen Bey and SQ can advertise the new pay rates in FI in the hope of recruiting new "fodder" and can also move ahead with long haul operation of the 777, beyond the present 4200NM agreement.
· The Government can avoid the embarrassment of crushing ALPAS in the IAC for the world aviation community to witness.
Further explain to SQ that this deal will allow them to gracefully substantially increase pay in Nov 2001 (expiry month of CA) to further stimulate recruiting/stem resignations once the niggardly scale of the present pay offer is realised to have minimal effect on recruiting figures and to hold the substantial number of existing pilots who, once in receipt of back pay, are planning to resign/jump bond/not renew contracts. As a corollary the Association to start vigorous negotiation in Jun 2001 prior to the CA expiring on 20 Nov 2001.
Institute a system of proper briefing, consultation and secret balloting of members, to decide on future major courses of action.
Make sure that ALPAS secures the services of a competent and respected Singapore contract law firm for the next CA negotiations to advise on a complete overhaul of the present so called "contract" - the budget can afford this, just cut down on beer"!
I agree entirely. How about looking at Insider107's suggestion when he started this thread? I quote the relevant pieces:
"So, maybe some real politik is in order if the ALPAS President and the Executive Council cares to consider the merits of the following "win win" suggestions:
Call the Registrar, meet him personally and tell him that ALPAS will sign the CA on the absolute basis that it is dated 21 Nov 1998 to sequence expiry of the last CA on 20 Nov 1998 - entirely logical as pay is proposed to be backdated to this date. Otherwise, no deal. The Registrar will be powerfully persuaded that ALPAS is seriously intent on maintaining a "harmonious industrial climate" and is "going the extra mile" to attain it.
Explain to the membership that this is a smart move for all concerned - ALPAS, SQ, Singapore Government as:
· The membership gets the back pay plus a raise - the latter can be considered "interim"
· Goodwill is generated with Lt Gen Bey and SQ can advertise the new pay rates in FI in the hope of recruiting new "fodder" and can also move ahead with long haul operation of the 777, beyond the present 4200NM agreement.
· The Government can avoid the embarrassment of crushing ALPAS in the IAC for the world aviation community to witness.
Further explain to SQ that this deal will allow them to gracefully substantially increase pay in Nov 2001 (expiry month of CA) to further stimulate recruiting/stem resignations once the niggardly scale of the present pay offer is realised to have minimal effect on recruiting figures and to hold the substantial number of existing pilots who, once in receipt of back pay, are planning to resign/jump bond/not renew contracts. As a corollary the Association to start vigorous negotiation in Jun 2001 prior to the CA expiring on 20 Nov 2001.
Institute a system of proper briefing, consultation and secret balloting of members, to decide on future major courses of action.
Make sure that ALPAS secures the services of a competent and respected Singapore contract law firm for the next CA negotiations to advise on a complete overhaul of the present so called "contract" - the budget can afford this, just cut down on beer"!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I’ve just had a look at the latest “From the SVP’s (formerly DFO’s) Desk dated 9 March 2001. In light of the up-coming ALPAS “Machan Kechil” slated for 20 March, I’d like to make one or two comments.
M de V takes some pains to point out that it took 27 months to “negotiate” the proposed CA – unsurprising for a master of obfuscation, confusion and, if all else fails, outright mendacity (all words correct, I had a good look at the dictionary), who’s unfailing tactic is just to wear down the opposition with continual repetition of the standard mantra “it’s the best the Company can offer in the circumstances” and “it takes two to make an agreement”. Does he seriously think that we are not aware that it is entirely in his and the Company’s favour to drag out the “negotiations” as long as possible plus keep any benefit increase to a miserly level, as (a) he makes his annual bonus for saving flight ops costs and (b) the Company keeps salary cash in its coffers as long as possible to substantially assist cash flow.
His letter of the 9th also says “informed it [the Association] that we [the Company] would not enter into any further negotiations with the Association because, if it did (sic), the Company itself would be seen as accepting that the agreed package was no longer agreed” No Maurice, you can’t have it all ways! There was no agreement for the very simple reason (which you know yourself) that the ALPAS President and Executive Council negotiated with you on behalf of the MEMBERSHIP. Whatever you collectively agreed between yourselves carried no weight in law and was only a proposition to be made to the guys who would have to live with it if they OK’d it. When the proposition was made to the Membership on 2 January 2001, they rejected it, hence there was no agreement (how could there be one without the Membership’s approval?).
Would someone please explain to me where the tablets of stone are kept that came from the top of the mountain, on which are carved the words “the normal practice of a CA’s tenure [shall be] commencing on the date of signing [of the CA]”. This concept is entirely spurious, has no basis in any SIA contract or other documentation I have ever been able to find (except “from the DFO’s Desk”
and has no basis in Singaporean law. I find it remarkable that the logic of backdating the pay improvement to 21 November 1998 holds good but the parallel logic of backdating the effective date of CA to the same day apparently does not. Can someone please also explain to me why this can be the case?
ALPAS President Mok. Please do not let the proceedings turn into the usual zoo on the 20th. Delay the beer and food until the boys have heard you out and have sensibly had their say, specifically on the effective date of the CA (got to be 21 Nov ’98 – you know it make sense!). Then have the vote followed by the PU!
M de V takes some pains to point out that it took 27 months to “negotiate” the proposed CA – unsurprising for a master of obfuscation, confusion and, if all else fails, outright mendacity (all words correct, I had a good look at the dictionary), who’s unfailing tactic is just to wear down the opposition with continual repetition of the standard mantra “it’s the best the Company can offer in the circumstances” and “it takes two to make an agreement”. Does he seriously think that we are not aware that it is entirely in his and the Company’s favour to drag out the “negotiations” as long as possible plus keep any benefit increase to a miserly level, as (a) he makes his annual bonus for saving flight ops costs and (b) the Company keeps salary cash in its coffers as long as possible to substantially assist cash flow.
His letter of the 9th also says “informed it [the Association] that we [the Company] would not enter into any further negotiations with the Association because, if it did (sic), the Company itself would be seen as accepting that the agreed package was no longer agreed” No Maurice, you can’t have it all ways! There was no agreement for the very simple reason (which you know yourself) that the ALPAS President and Executive Council negotiated with you on behalf of the MEMBERSHIP. Whatever you collectively agreed between yourselves carried no weight in law and was only a proposition to be made to the guys who would have to live with it if they OK’d it. When the proposition was made to the Membership on 2 January 2001, they rejected it, hence there was no agreement (how could there be one without the Membership’s approval?).
Would someone please explain to me where the tablets of stone are kept that came from the top of the mountain, on which are carved the words “the normal practice of a CA’s tenure [shall be] commencing on the date of signing [of the CA]”. This concept is entirely spurious, has no basis in any SIA contract or other documentation I have ever been able to find (except “from the DFO’s Desk”
and has no basis in Singaporean law. I find it remarkable that the logic of backdating the pay improvement to 21 November 1998 holds good but the parallel logic of backdating the effective date of CA to the same day apparently does not. Can someone please also explain to me why this can be the case?ALPAS President Mok. Please do not let the proceedings turn into the usual zoo on the 20th. Delay the beer and food until the boys have heard you out and have sensibly had their say, specifically on the effective date of the CA (got to be 21 Nov ’98 – you know it make sense!). Then have the vote followed by the PU!
Guest
Posts: n/a
With SIA now having played the IAC card, many people who bet their farm on the believe that this matter will not be brought forward to IAC (and hence full back-pay vs 6 months) by voting NO to the "package" on 2/1/01 will be less sure now.
Many in fact has suddenly lost their balls and gave excuses like : the REJECTED package not being explained fully to ALL the members prior to voting; The proxy system has failed them, they ACTUALLY wanted the (rejected) package but the person(s) whom they entrusted their vote(s) to in the last EGM has gone the other way, etc.
Did all those loud and emotional words spoken at the last EGM suddenly became hot air ? Are we now going to show the world how we can (un)skillfully backtrack on the overwhelming 92% majority decision reached a little over 2 months ago and gracefully swallow the "package" ?
I sincerely hope not, else it will make us look like a bunch of immature children. Not to mention the future ramifications that this backtrack will bring.
One last point (probably overlooked by Tosh26), from the latest "From The SVP's Desk" and I quote ".... we (SIA) could not enter into any further negotiations with the Association.... it (SIA) had conceded everything it could possibly could, for the sake of reaching an agreement, and to enter into further negotiations with the Union would have meant there was more that could be given. That would have demonstrated bad faith on the Company's part in the earlier negotiations....". My question is this : If SIA (and its negotiators) were negotating on "good" faith, why on earth did SIA increases its initial offer of a raise of S$150 (Captain) and S$75 (FO) from the on set of the CA negotiation ?
Remember this : together we stand; Divided, we will rue this day in decades to come.
Many in fact has suddenly lost their balls and gave excuses like : the REJECTED package not being explained fully to ALL the members prior to voting; The proxy system has failed them, they ACTUALLY wanted the (rejected) package but the person(s) whom they entrusted their vote(s) to in the last EGM has gone the other way, etc.
Did all those loud and emotional words spoken at the last EGM suddenly became hot air ? Are we now going to show the world how we can (un)skillfully backtrack on the overwhelming 92% majority decision reached a little over 2 months ago and gracefully swallow the "package" ?
I sincerely hope not, else it will make us look like a bunch of immature children. Not to mention the future ramifications that this backtrack will bring.
One last point (probably overlooked by Tosh26), from the latest "From The SVP's Desk" and I quote ".... we (SIA) could not enter into any further negotiations with the Association.... it (SIA) had conceded everything it could possibly could, for the sake of reaching an agreement, and to enter into further negotiations with the Union would have meant there was more that could be given. That would have demonstrated bad faith on the Company's part in the earlier negotiations....". My question is this : If SIA (and its negotiators) were negotating on "good" faith, why on earth did SIA increases its initial offer of a raise of S$150 (Captain) and S$75 (FO) from the on set of the CA negotiation ?
Remember this : together we stand; Divided, we will rue this day in decades to come.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Santa,
The illusion that local SIA pilots are unemployable outside of Singapore is a cheap ploy by Management but unfortunately believed by most.
There are 2 ex SIA local pilots flying as Captains with NMB. There is one with Air Atlanta Icelandic another with Pelangi. A Singaporean is flying with Cargolux. A number of ex RSAF pilots are with EVA Air. The list goes on so don't believe everything you hear from the 4th floor.
The illusion that local SIA pilots are unemployable outside of Singapore is a cheap ploy by Management but unfortunately believed by most.
There are 2 ex SIA local pilots flying as Captains with NMB. There is one with Air Atlanta Icelandic another with Pelangi. A Singaporean is flying with Cargolux. A number of ex RSAF pilots are with EVA Air. The list goes on so don't believe everything you hear from the 4th floor.
Guest
Posts: n/a
as seen many times on pprune there are plenty of spaces avail in kal too.
there are several capt's there from thai and indonesia.
i would hve thought a few wud get there from singapore too at some stage.
i know in sia u can never get 10 days off(consec)or hve their(kia) kind rosters either.
there are several capt's there from thai and indonesia.
i would hve thought a few wud get there from singapore too at some stage.
i know in sia u can never get 10 days off(consec)or hve their(kia) kind rosters either.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If tonight's ALPAS EGM membership vote goes against acceptance of the fruits of the latest discussion between ALPAS Executive Council and SIA management, due to take place today, will this mean that SIA will be unable to advertise the wonderful new pay rates it is favouring us with and so further hinder its desperate recruiting drive?
Guest
Posts: n/a
To all ALPA-S members and SIA pilots:
You have two choices in life. You can be bullied and go cowering away to hide in shame, or finally get the balls to stand up to these bullies. Everyone says Singapore is changing and desperatley wants acceptance into the First World; show them the way. Look what was achieved by a couple of persistent ex SIA individuals with the three crew duty business. You can take on SIA and win.
This is YOUR future here. SIA management are bullies; they learnt it from the government. Think back to the schoolyard days; when someone eventually had the courage to take on the bully and punch him in the nose, what happened? Thats right, the bully ran off home crying to his mummy.
If you feel fear when confronted by them, try this little trick that someone once taught me ...... imagine them standing there in their underwear. Not only will it make you smile and give you confidence, but it will make you realise just what a PATHETIC bunch of people your management really are.
Goodluck .......... Titan
You have two choices in life. You can be bullied and go cowering away to hide in shame, or finally get the balls to stand up to these bullies. Everyone says Singapore is changing and desperatley wants acceptance into the First World; show them the way. Look what was achieved by a couple of persistent ex SIA individuals with the three crew duty business. You can take on SIA and win.
This is YOUR future here. SIA management are bullies; they learnt it from the government. Think back to the schoolyard days; when someone eventually had the courage to take on the bully and punch him in the nose, what happened? Thats right, the bully ran off home crying to his mummy.
If you feel fear when confronted by them, try this little trick that someone once taught me ...... imagine them standing there in their underwear. Not only will it make you smile and give you confidence, but it will make you realise just what a PATHETIC bunch of people your management really are.
Goodluck .......... Titan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looks like all the expart captains have left SQ.Where were they at the macken kachel.
have they all left the company for greener liner.Why did they not come over last evening to put in their bit.Are they contended with what they are getting?and know they cant get anything better any where.
we are all kept guessing
have they all left the company for greener liner.Why did they not come over last evening to put in their bit.Are they contended with what they are getting?and know they cant get anything better any where.
we are all kept guessing
Guest
Posts: n/a
sneaky_cobra
Have you checked on the exact number of SIA ex-pat pilots who are not in the Association due to the Constitution disallowing ex-pat pilots a vote on the composition of the Executive Council which will represent them, as against such ex-pat pilots who are members of the Association but who were rostered to fly yesterday, the date of the ALPAS EGM?
Have you checked on the exact number of SIA ex-pat pilots who are not in the Association due to the Constitution disallowing ex-pat pilots a vote on the composition of the Executive Council which will represent them, as against such ex-pat pilots who are members of the Association but who were rostered to fly yesterday, the date of the ALPAS EGM?
Guest
Posts: n/a
0.88M:
Not too sure of the meaning of your post, however, be assured that SIA is having great trouble forgetting me. With nothing to lose and so much to gain, I have grabbed hold of them and will not let go. I just hope the likes of RJ, Freddy and Maurice are still mobile enough to face prosecution under Singapore law when their deeds are finally disclosed in the coming court hearing. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than putting those subpoened witnesses on the stand in what will be a most public and humuliating trial for SIA. The paper trail is too long for "I don't remember" to work.
Wish them luck ............
Not too sure of the meaning of your post, however, be assured that SIA is having great trouble forgetting me. With nothing to lose and so much to gain, I have grabbed hold of them and will not let go. I just hope the likes of RJ, Freddy and Maurice are still mobile enough to face prosecution under Singapore law when their deeds are finally disclosed in the coming court hearing. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than putting those subpoened witnesses on the stand in what will be a most public and humuliating trial for SIA. The paper trail is too long for "I don't remember" to work.
Wish them luck ............
Guest
Posts: n/a
For all interested readers, the present state of play, as very reliably reported to your writer, in respect of ALPAS v SQ, is as follows:
A meeting took place between the two parties on 20 March 2001 in Singapore, mediated by a representative of the Ministry of Manpower. Talks proved inconclusive and the feeling amongst the ALPAS representatives was that SQ (de Vaz) was uninterested in further talks and happy to drag things out (business as usual).
An Emergency General Meeting (EGM), convened by ALPAS Executive Council took place at 1830hrs on the same day and the Membership was appraised of proceeding events and the continued obduracy of SQ (de Vaz). It was further confirmed that an Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) hearing was now set for 11 April 2001 during which both parties would formally set out their claims before the Registrar, who would shortly afterwards give a binding judgement.
The feeling of the Membership is that they back the ALPAS President to the hilt, they further back the Executive Council even though reservations are felt towards certain Council members who are suspected of management ambition under the de Vaz brown nose advancement scheme. Further, they are determined to call a halt to the abysmal treatment meted out to them by SQ over the years and to take positive steps to improve their lot with a show of solidarity and strength. The President and Members are demonstrating that they have the balls to move ahead to uncharted territory and the guts to at last take on SQ with a will and agenda to win.
Hence, I unreservedly withdraw my previous imputation of ALPAS being a craven company poodle, run by an extended clique of de Vaz sycophants whose only concern has ever been to sell the Membership down the river as the price of their own personal advancement. I further apologise unreservedly to the ALPAS President, Captain Mok, for my equally erroneous implication of him being an inept “man of straw” without the courage or confidence to move ahead to an unprecedented IAC hearing and judgement. I was wrong about you - I am sorry.
In light of events, may I recap on what is all SQ pilots’ by right, not by grace and favour of SQ?
1. The dating of the new Collective Agreement (CA) from 21 November 1998, to sequence expiry of the previous CA on 20 November 1998.
2. Full back pay of salary, market adjustment, meal allowance and incentive allowance to 21 November 1998.
Remember, we are the guys who have done the work - we are owed the money. It is not a matter of SQ giving us a collective pat on the head and saying “aren’t we wonderful giving you this lovely big windfall because we are such a nice company”. The money belongs to us!
Finally, I’d like to mention a couple more points about the one man truly responsible for the present mess within the flight ops department and the present rancorous feeling and pathetic level of our remunerative package - de Vaz, our very own Dear Leader.
It was revealed at the EGM that during the first year of negotiation between ALPAS and SQ, no pay rise at all was offered by de Vaz and that subsequently the most derisorily and insulting pittances were offered during the following year until the intervention of Lt Gen Bey, when things moved suddenly. Readers may conclude these de Vaz maneouvres as entirely consistent with his overall strategy of delay and division to engineer effective CA lifespans well in excess of the notional three-year terms, with the aim of paring flight ops costs to the bone. He has been very successful over his 19 years in office and if consideration is given to his speculated present annual bonus of S$3,000,000 for meeting flight ops cost saving targets and if this sum is average over his incumbency to produce a total not unadjacent to, say, 19xS$2M = S$38,000,000 then it can be appreciated that he has done rather well over the years, at the expense of the pilots he purports to lead.
During a past meeting with ALPAS, the Dear Leader was taken to task on the subject of rostered days off/acclimatization between duties. It was pointed out to him that the computerized rostering system would throw up alarms if the legal requirements were infringed but that, on his illegal instructions, the system was manually overridden when required, to produce more “productive” (illegal) rosters. When challenged, his answer was “when you are running an outfit of this size, you need to cut a few corners”
I do hope that the survivors/relatives of the SQ006 disaster also appreciate his need to “cut corners”, when it is revealed in court that the captain’s roster had been similarly overridden just before reporting for SQ006, to illegally reduce rest/acclimatization and so become more “productive”
A meeting took place between the two parties on 20 March 2001 in Singapore, mediated by a representative of the Ministry of Manpower. Talks proved inconclusive and the feeling amongst the ALPAS representatives was that SQ (de Vaz) was uninterested in further talks and happy to drag things out (business as usual).
An Emergency General Meeting (EGM), convened by ALPAS Executive Council took place at 1830hrs on the same day and the Membership was appraised of proceeding events and the continued obduracy of SQ (de Vaz). It was further confirmed that an Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) hearing was now set for 11 April 2001 during which both parties would formally set out their claims before the Registrar, who would shortly afterwards give a binding judgement.
The feeling of the Membership is that they back the ALPAS President to the hilt, they further back the Executive Council even though reservations are felt towards certain Council members who are suspected of management ambition under the de Vaz brown nose advancement scheme. Further, they are determined to call a halt to the abysmal treatment meted out to them by SQ over the years and to take positive steps to improve their lot with a show of solidarity and strength. The President and Members are demonstrating that they have the balls to move ahead to uncharted territory and the guts to at last take on SQ with a will and agenda to win.
Hence, I unreservedly withdraw my previous imputation of ALPAS being a craven company poodle, run by an extended clique of de Vaz sycophants whose only concern has ever been to sell the Membership down the river as the price of their own personal advancement. I further apologise unreservedly to the ALPAS President, Captain Mok, for my equally erroneous implication of him being an inept “man of straw” without the courage or confidence to move ahead to an unprecedented IAC hearing and judgement. I was wrong about you - I am sorry.
In light of events, may I recap on what is all SQ pilots’ by right, not by grace and favour of SQ?
1. The dating of the new Collective Agreement (CA) from 21 November 1998, to sequence expiry of the previous CA on 20 November 1998.
2. Full back pay of salary, market adjustment, meal allowance and incentive allowance to 21 November 1998.
Remember, we are the guys who have done the work - we are owed the money. It is not a matter of SQ giving us a collective pat on the head and saying “aren’t we wonderful giving you this lovely big windfall because we are such a nice company”. The money belongs to us!
Finally, I’d like to mention a couple more points about the one man truly responsible for the present mess within the flight ops department and the present rancorous feeling and pathetic level of our remunerative package - de Vaz, our very own Dear Leader.
It was revealed at the EGM that during the first year of negotiation between ALPAS and SQ, no pay rise at all was offered by de Vaz and that subsequently the most derisorily and insulting pittances were offered during the following year until the intervention of Lt Gen Bey, when things moved suddenly. Readers may conclude these de Vaz maneouvres as entirely consistent with his overall strategy of delay and division to engineer effective CA lifespans well in excess of the notional three-year terms, with the aim of paring flight ops costs to the bone. He has been very successful over his 19 years in office and if consideration is given to his speculated present annual bonus of S$3,000,000 for meeting flight ops cost saving targets and if this sum is average over his incumbency to produce a total not unadjacent to, say, 19xS$2M = S$38,000,000 then it can be appreciated that he has done rather well over the years, at the expense of the pilots he purports to lead.
During a past meeting with ALPAS, the Dear Leader was taken to task on the subject of rostered days off/acclimatization between duties. It was pointed out to him that the computerized rostering system would throw up alarms if the legal requirements were infringed but that, on his illegal instructions, the system was manually overridden when required, to produce more “productive” (illegal) rosters. When challenged, his answer was “when you are running an outfit of this size, you need to cut a few corners”
I do hope that the survivors/relatives of the SQ006 disaster also appreciate his need to “cut corners”, when it is revealed in court that the captain’s roster had been similarly overridden just before reporting for SQ006, to illegally reduce rest/acclimatization and so become more “productive”