Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SQ Pilots - Give ALPAS Your View

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SQ Pilots - Give ALPAS Your View

Old 19th Feb 2001, 00:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Insider107
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post SQ Pilots - Give ALPAS Your View

I think that a new thread is probably an appropriate way to mention the upcoming situation in respect of ALPAS v SQ, probably to be heard in the Industrial Arbitration Court of Singapore, as intimated in the latest ALPAS communiqué of 13 Feb 2001.

To add a little perspective to events, readers may wish to note that, unlike in North America or Western Europe, judges in Singapore do not enjoy "tenure" - that is appointment for life but, like most people in the Republic's "meritocracy", have arrangements that are renewable on the basis of perceived "productivity/reliability" in the job. Readers may further care to deduce the magnitude of independence which the Singapore Judiciary hence enjoys in its relationship with both the Legislature and the Executive of the Republic.

Added perception may be gained by an appreciation that Temasek Holdings (Government) maintains a majority stake in SQ and that the regime totally controls the “union” organisations in Singapore through the enactment of no strike legislation and the activities of its placemen and puppets with in the “unions”.

To give ALPAS its due, the Association is regarded as something of a maverick in the scheme of things, continually agitating on behalf of “highly paid and privileged pilots” – it needless to say, being ignored that most middle rank civil service drones in Singapore receive a far higher salary that senior SQ captains for spending their days counting paperclips and evading accountability. These self same heroes were the recent recipients of a 13% pay raise “to stay abreast of the private sector”. Similarly, exceptionally highly paid Singapore Government Ministers were also the recipients of a very comfortable 28% pay raise, for the same reason, much to the muted chagrin and derision of a deeply cynical population and the vociferous adverse comment of the US press.

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!

Explain to the membership that M de V will soon be gone and that there is a "wind of change" blowing through Singapore and by extension, SQ, as recently evidenced by SM Lee's acknowledgement, in Davos, at the World Economic Summit, that Confucian values perhaps do need modifying and that nepotism/paternalism now need to pass into history and, by implication, modern Singapore corporations require to emerge to the sunlight of real merit (not nationalist crony "merit") and first world global standards of openness and accountability.

Re-emphasise to all pilots that they must maintain a dignified stance and, hence, the moral high ground in a situation which will shortly see a corrupt, lazy and complacent "management" consigned to the dustbin of history.

Finally, condemn the execrable spectacle of gutless, disloyal ALPAS, SIP members scuttling around FCC like cockroaches, exhorting all pilots misguided enough to listen, to sign a petition unreservedly accepting SQ's derisory terms/effective date and shamelessly cutting the ground from under their elected leaders' feet! Is this the fruit of 35 years of national development? Disgusting!

To finish - ALPAS members - post a message on this thread to state your view - its easily and anonymously done and will give an accurate indication of the memberships view of this proposal. Then get on to your ALPAS President - he is your servant, not the other way round and tell him what you wish him to do. E-mail him this proposal, if you agree with it, plus your own comments. If enough of you do this, things can really start moving! Seize the moment!
FO's especially, you may be making the first move in the transformation of ALPAS from being a pathetic SQ poodle, breeding sycophantic nonentity aspirants to the M de V school of "management", into a proud and effective Association with powerful moral standing, able to safeguard the benefits and the welfare of all its members.

PS Danny/Rob. I request your forbearance on this one. Even though my article has an apparently "industrial" theme, it is still central to my absolute concern for flight safety within SQ. The present industrial impasse and corollary rancid feeling between the pilot body and SQ is having the most remarkably corrosive effect on the efficiency of SQ flight operations and requires urgent resolution before we have another disaster. I make my suggestions to so resolve the situation in the most powerful medium I know of - your web site.

Kindest regards
 
Old 19th Feb 2001, 06:03
  #2 (permalink)  
titan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Insider107
A remarkable show of courage, but be careful. Remember how the governmant in Singapore deals with dissenters. Industrial rebellion can come under the State Security Act; it has happened in the past.

Titan's advice to all Singapore Airlines' foreign pilots is to simply start looking elsewhere. It is very rare for a man to change his ways after a lifetime of consistency, and you are asking not one man, but a whole nation to change its psyche. This type of change takes generations to accomplish.

There has already been a mass exodus from SIA with the foreign national pilots, over 40 to date. Many were intimidated and succumbed to the Singaporean Disease - bankrupting people that oppose you. But those that have stood up and said NO! are still standing. Gladiator won, and there are more to come.

As for the local pilots, I don't see much hope. In SIA one advances by using a fellow colleague as a stepping stone and consequently nobody trusts anybody else. How do you fix this??

 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 04:11
  #3 (permalink)  
titan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Over 1000 pilots in SIA and not one reply!
Is it because they can't even help themselves, or a result of the fear that pervades the place; the all seeing all knowing intelligence network.

Insider107, it looks like that old saying about leading a horse to water is true.
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 11:49
  #4 (permalink)  
0.88M
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

With the IAC looming on the 26th. I think many will regret the day they voted NO for the package.It is suicide when they voted out the CA , without an action plan.And now they pay the price of not being realistic about dealing with the management.How bad ca bad be ? only @your Honour@ will know on the 26th.
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 12:14
  #5 (permalink)  
sia sniffer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Historically, the arbitration over the collective agreement has always gone in favor of Singapore Airlines, or certainly for the last ten years that I know about.

By accepting to let negotiations be settled by arbitration (ie by the Singapore government), the pilots union (sorry, association, no nasty expat coruptive voting allowed here), accepts that a limit of 6 months backpay is the recommended maximum that has to be assigned by the company. If the pilots had accepted the initial settlement, then I believe the whole 2 years "backpay" would be applicable.

So, when the arbitration reaches its conclusion, everybody's happy.ALPA-S negotiators because they got a few more peanuts off the company, and SIA as they dont have to backpay massive amounts of dosh. Bingo! What a hollow victory. Expat pilots,do as we have all done before, get the hell outta there!!
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 13:24
  #6 (permalink)  
Insider107
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Sigh!!!
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 13:24
  #7 (permalink)  
Established !
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Insider 107, as a member of ALPA-S, this business of the CA, ALPA-S v SQ is a matter of internal corcern. It is nobody else's business. So why should you put it in a public forum. I'm sure you are aware that we do have our own private e-forum that is pretty active on this matter. There will be a time for this to go public. Or are your intentions otherwise.
Titan, as above thats why nobody participating in this. Fear? but Pprune is a foreigne site with posting of anynomity, isn't it. You are a case in point that anyone can post ranting rubbish.
0.88, the members were "not being realistic". But doesn't that say something. 92% decided agaisnt being 'realistic' and stood by 'principles' knowing full well that they may pay dearly for it. But we're here for the long run, not passer bys.
SIA Sniffer, and as a 'passed by' whats your interest? You made your choice, respect others. As I say 'The door is always wide open'.
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 14:48
  #8 (permalink)  
sia sniffer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

....and postings on the SIA internal "private" forum would never, ever, find their way onto a "public" site , leaked by an unscrupulous Singaporean f/o, without the consent of the instigator.Of course not.
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 19:09
  #9 (permalink)  
tulips
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Established! Your point has validity.

However, I (and I would imagine many others) have very few avenues through which to glean information on a possible prospective employer. So I personally find this public forum a valuable source.

So what if a little dirty washing gets hung out here? I can largely distinguish between hot air, sour grapes and real nuggets of information.

You will probably find that the information available here has contributed to the lack of applicants SIA has, which indirectly will further your very cause of obtaining better conditions and benefits for your members!

I would like to work for a SIA that has the reputation of a good employer amongst its crews. Until then, I will just bide my time, and follow the events on PpRuNe.

Good luck to you all.
 
Old 20th Feb 2001, 23:13
  #10 (permalink)  
Gladiator
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

SIA'S TRAETMENT OF EMPLOYERS

You can run but you can't hide!
 
Old 21st Feb 2001, 03:32
  #11 (permalink)  
titan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Established !
You just don't get it , do you? The big picture, that is, just like LKY intended.

I worked at SIA and was a member of ALPA-S, so I am qualified and "permitted" to talk about it. What you can't comprehend is that out here beyond the reach of the Lyin City it is a free world. The fact that you post here and is proof enough of your internal torment.
And as far as anonymity goes, lets not kid ourselves. These things can be worked out without too much trouble. Most of the regular posters here are known to the others:
"Lets see, Established ! posted on this, this and this date, and he can't have been these people because the roster has them flying or sleeping, so Established ! must be our naughty employee XXXX".

As I said, the Expats can look elsewhere but what becomes of the 1000 mice is anyone's guess.

 
Old 21st Feb 2001, 08:11
  #12 (permalink)  
EasyGo-Lucky?
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Sorry but the back pay would amount to 2 years and 3 months at the time of the IAC hearing. If this results in us only being paid 6 months the Company will pay far more than that in the long term but they are too arrogant to see that. We are still earning less than we did over 2 years ago because of the enforced cuts brought about by the Asian Economic Crisis. SIA has already announced profits of over SIN$1 billion for the first 6 months of this financial year but deems it necessary to maintain the cuts because of possible future bleak economic times. Its just so ridiculous. Ahhh where's the scotch.
 
Old 22nd Feb 2001, 07:49
  #13 (permalink)  
Tosh26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Established!

I’d like to point out some errors in your thinking if you wouldn’t mind?
Firstly Pprune is not a “foreign” site – like every web site on earth it is “global” and everyone has access to it, unless blocked by government intervention, as for example in China. Being “global” and public, everyone can use it to have their say, whether in their true persona or using a posting name to protect anonymity. In the case of Titan and Insider107, I think the latter format is highly prudent in Singapore, when making their valuable inputs that seem to me to be completely the opposite of “ranting rubbish”.
Secondly, I do believe that what is going on in Singapore Airlines is a matter of considerable interest obviously to ALPAS members but also to ex-pats and to “outsiders” who may be considering applying to the airline for a job. Therefore the wider the circulation of information, the better.
Thirdly, was ALPAS thinking of the “long run” when it foolishly gave away the 6% annual increment to basic pay a couple of years ago?
To close, I’d like to quote part of a letter that I noticed on the back of today’s (22.02.01) Straits Times, from Liew Kai Khiun on being Singaporean:

<Finally, creating an “us versus them” xenophobic mentality [for example] through soccer matches or foreign bogeymen is definitely not a healthy and rational means of fostering a collective sense of belonging>.
 
Old 22nd Feb 2001, 20:54
  #14 (permalink)  
sia sniffer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The problem is that Singaporeans are so self centred. Contrary opinions to the rhetoric of public demagogues is viewed with suspicion. Denial, prejudice is rife in a society created by the teachings of one man.

Looking at the culture of SIA. As an expat, you are a "foreigner". Expressions unfavourable to a Singaporean or perceived as such, are dismissed as "rantings " of "foreigners".

There were a bunch of new commanders, promoted from the 747 classic who were known as the hitler youth. Their standing on the classic was as Trainig First Officers, prior to their promotions. As captains, they bestowed it upon themselves to agitate and cause disruption to the careers of many of the newly recruited expat first officers. The company knew about this, but allowed the captains to operate with impunity; their racial slurs born of their own institutionalisation.

"Singaporean values", the rantings of the avaricious many, gorging themselves, unaware of their own impotence.
 
Old 23rd Feb 2001, 05:05
  #15 (permalink)  
titan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

It seems to me that the whole "Singaporean Values" issue can be summed up as economic incarceration.

Extended families do not live together because they love each other. They do because the cost of living is so exhorbitant, and the wages so low, that it is a necessity of survival. This is no different to any other developing nation.

The "meaness" could very well be a product of their success being measured only in monetary value. This could account for the low standing of the aviation profession there. It may also be the reason why Singapore is yet to have a citizen awarded a Noble prize.
 
Old 23rd Feb 2001, 09:11
  #16 (permalink)  
Whiskery
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

You are right, from the above postings it would appear there are not enough noblemen in Singapore for a Noble Prize. Maybe someone there should strive for the Nobel Prize instead?

Keep the faith :]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 23 February 2001).]
 
Old 26th Feb 2001, 05:25
  #17 (permalink)  
Insider107
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Established!

Thank you very much for your wonderfully revealing post of 20 Feb 2001. I believe that it could not be bettered even if submitted as a spoof! May I therefore develop the themes that you have opened up plus those contained in other replies posted by my colleagues and also ask you to tell me if any part of my post is in any way inaccurate in respect of factual content or derived conclusion? Titan/sia sniffer – thank you very much for your support plus your spot-on postings.

Established! your first paragraph is particularly valuable for it allows me to make the point that if indeed I had submitted this thread’s original posting through the medium of the ALPAS e-forum and used the form of words which matched my true feeling, then I would be able to guarantee that shortly after publication I would have received a summons to 4th floor STC where an explanation of my feelings would have been demanded and, I’m afraid, being who I am, I would have stood by everything that I posted and gratuitously added further colour to my narrative. The next event would then have been a terse communication from the Department of Immigration to the effect that there now seemed to be a problem with my work permit and that I was, hence, obliged to leave the country in the next 48 hours. The effect on both my family and finances would, needless to say, be devastating but entirely consistent with the now enshrined methodology when dealing with any form of dissent in Singapore - for dissent read informed opinion that varies with received orthodoxy of both the company and the regime. As a corollary, if I was Singaporean or Malaysian PR I would be hauled off by the ISA boys with a view to possibly receiving psychiatric treatment.

Outside readers may be surprised that this sequence of events may be postulated as likely, following the airing of views, hardly revolutionary, in a nation which daily trumpets membership of the “first world” and exhorts the population to think “globally” but such is the feeling that it could happen that the all important “control” is maintained nationally through fear as indeed it is maintained within SQ, a microsm of the larger nation. As it is, my anonymous posting on Pprune serves to allow the airing of these views and, as the 4th floor would find it a little difficult to establish my identity, would be unable to sanction me – hence the all important “face” can be saved and my views dismissed as “rubbish”, so everyone is happy. As a footnote to this paragraph, my comments on “first world” and “globally” should not be misinterpreted. Singapore is indeed a miracle and there are many (and I do mean many) fine attributes of both the nation and the population, to be found on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the required tough measures instigated 35 years ago by the father of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, to form the state, remain to this day and have set their stamp on attitudes and behaviour which, I believe, SM Lee is now wisely attempting to change. As ever, smaller men are unable to immediately grasp the overview provided by such mercurial intelligence!

Still on your first paragraph, you mention that “there will be a time to go public”. Far be it from me to attempt an analysis of mind sets but is this not revealing of a long established culture of both secrecy and paternalism whereby a course of action will be decide by a conclave of cronies and the derived decision will be handed down to the masses and deemed to be “for their own good”. Again, I do believe that SM Lee is attempting a sea-change of institutional thinking and moving away from this approach, to one that encourages careful individual thought and analysis coupled with a framework that encourages the voicing of such opinion as produced by this process. You may be interested to note a prime example of this SQ secrecy/paternalism culture in the covering up of the fairly recent 744 stalling incident. Rumour had it that this had occurred on a Europe-Singapore flight following the ambitious climb to a far higher altitude than the aircraft’s current weight could sustain – I know it as a fact as a highly experienced friend and colleague was positioning on that flight and recognised the violent buffet and immediate sense of altitude loss so produced, for what it was. Needless to say, the local captain, who obviously plays golf with the right people was not required to account for his actions and the only way the “masses” were able to divine a possible recent event was by the unprecedented alacrity with which stalling exercises were introduced to recurrent and base check sim sessions and conjunctive, didactic buffet margin lectures were received from 12 year old SIPs to “teach” us all how to avoid these situations – OIC is that how its done? Established! – is this really the way we should be doing things?

Moving to your next paragraph, I do believe that my colleagues have made convincing explanation of the nature of web sites but may I further say that there really can be no such thing as a “foreign” site. It matters not a jot where the site’s server is – it could be set up by a Singaporean on the north pole but still be used by members of all nations – would it then be a “local” site or a “foreign” one?

On the matter of “fear”, well yes this is indeed a very important issue. Titan makes the point that most of the pilots would be afraid of making any posting on this site and expressing support for an obviously “ex-pat” suggestion. I would say, in fact, that the average Singaporean ALPAS member is frightened of his own shadow (I’m only half in jest!) – for all the reasons previously expounded by countless contributors to Pprune. The importance, however, is that this fear takes itself into the flight deck and prevents any serious challenge to a captain intent on pursuing a potentially dangerous course of action. All of which both validates Titan’s hypothesis suggested in your posting and makes a mockery of the effort and expense put into countless ARM courses.

Moving on, every FO I’ve spoken with on the subject maintains that, far from the vote (show of hands, by the way) being based on a matter of “principle”, it was one based on emotion and frustration, directed at both SQ for their continued and traditional obduracy and ALPAS Executive Council for their failure to fully explain the details and ramifications of the SQ offer.

Finally you rather cryptically say “the door is always open”. Well perhaps you should make it a little more obvious to all the ex-pat pilots in SQ – they have a collective wealth of both professional and industrial experience and can be of great assistance in raising benefit and welfare status for all pilots in SQ.
 
Old 27th Feb 2001, 02:16
  #18 (permalink)  
Seeyouentee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So what was the decision of the Industrial Relations commission on the 26th???
 
Old 27th Feb 2001, 04:13
  #19 (permalink)  
sneaky_cobra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Epart Pilots in SQ.90% leftovers from other Airlines from diffrent parts of the globe.Either kicked out from their country(Aussie) or have left because of poor salaries.
Dont seem to be ever happy.Just pretent they have other options.BULL **** .Want to see how many will leave SQ.How many have left after all their threats. Not more than 20% will find jobs and for sure not better than SQ.
The salaries in SQ( Locals) is for sure even better than an Air Canada Captain.
Senior IP 25 yrs service(Sin $)
16000 basic
1500 Ip allowance
1500 meal allowance
2800 IFA
500 Market adj
950 Cpf contributation
16000x5mths bonus=80000=6600 per month
+20% Cpf contrabution on bonus=12000per year=1000 per month

Add the sum=S$30850 per month
Had the Ca been signd it would mean another S$1700
Total S$32000 per month LOCAL SALARY

Expart Captain 10 yrs service

S$12000 basic
1050 expart allowance
500 market adj
1500 meal allowance
2800 IFA
900 CPF contrabution
12000x5mths bonus=60000 per yr=5000 per month
20% CPF contr on bonus=1000 per month

total S$ 23000 approx per month
Minus I Tax 3500 per month
NetS$ 19750 per month tax free
US$11200 tax free
PLUS
3350 housing allowance
2000 a month education allowance

Which Airline will offer You exparts or local that amount.So be SATISFIED

Korea,Tiwan and that you ONLY threaten to go is a ****ter and more expensive to live.and work in.
So dont BITCH


 
Old 27th Feb 2001, 04:41
  #20 (permalink)  
gaunty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Insider107

Hmmm after reading and "looking through" sneaky_cobras peurile and immature post it looks like it's game set and match to you.

Profile: "pilot" "ontario" "flying", really, and if that standard of thought procesess, syntax, english and spelling reflects the level of education, on my flight deck I want him not.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.