I recall the QANTAS pilots in question didn't strike but worked a limiting schedule and then resigned en masse. That is a different ball game altogether.


Edited to say that of course it was not QANTAS pilots involved in the 1989 dispute, as correctly mentioned below. I posted in haste causing the error, I mean who doesn't think of QANTAS when the subject of Australian aviation comes up? Sorry.

Qantas ??

I think that that is quite correct. It never was a proper strike at all in Australia in 1989. But it was Australian not Qantas who were in dispute.

It seems to me that, except that it is a truism that industrial disputes are undesirable at any time, the history of the 1989 Australian pilots' dispute has nothing to teach BA or BALPA.

We're getting there slowly, Stoic, but some more research is still needed!

Amos, you have me completely lost. Why on earth would it be to my advantage to do further research on what happened in Australia in 1989?

Please explain. I like things that give me an advantage.

Pressman,

thanks for asking, I believe its a worldwide international/european ban from all the various pilot associations.

And from a BA pilots perspective once they select you guys/girls from within the BA selection process you will be VERY welcome to join us AND on the seniority list..

Also I can assure you that having worked in 32 years for various airlines worldwide the probable perspective that is portrayed here by the ignorant (in the proper use of the word) of us being arrogant etc etc is sooooo out of date and totally wrong, with respect to the rest of you my experience has been great working with a very professional, chilled, group of people. I know there are many on here that don't want to hear the truth as it seems to more fun (perverted) to mock and denigrate than listen to reason and the facts..

Toro...

p.s. 411A don't bother replying, I did offer to meet you in PHX if thats really where you slithered to but you for some reason declined....I wonder why.??

The dispute in Australia in 1989, was a strike by 'Ansett' and 'Australian' pilots. It was brought to an unsatisfactory conclusion by the airlines' management successfully gaining backing from the Hawke government to sequester the Pension Funds as compensation for lost finances during the dispute, which started with nominated Airport boycotts. The pilots were forced to resign to protect their pension amounts and having resigned, the airlines stated that the dispute was ended and were then free to charter aircraft and crews to enable schedules to be flown. Qantas pilots belonged to a different union and were not part of the dispute, nor did they resign 'en-mass'. A very unhappy situation that still reverberates around the (pilots) world today.
Am I the only one that thinks BA's timing to start a 'niche' airline while the world is sliding from a downturn to a recession, is typical of the poor planning that the airline has suffered from for decades? Perhaps the dispute will yet be in BA's favour in delaying another waste of money. It's time for W.W. to rein in expenditure and concentrate on the core business -for the airline's survival, if not his own!

pressman,

Thanks for your support, mate.:ok:

You'll be very welcome once this is sorted and you're on the mainline seniority list. Better for you and better for us as it stops BA playing you and me against each other to see who can work for the least.:yuk:

In the meantime, as you know, this still applies.

Dave B

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2...tbanbaorl0.jpg

One last attempt!
 

Those that talk of the march - of course plenty of people were there 1,100 + (who could argue?) but they were not all pilots. Lets say 1 x pilot, 1 x WHAG and 1 x child - leaves 370'ish - let's be generous & say 500. That leaves 2,700 pilots not attending, many of whom will be down route or (genuinely) resting. Go figure.
My point is simply that when assessing spin (for that read BA spin), remember that BALPA too is not backward in that area.
Shaka,
You have taken the trouble to read my past posts; forgive me if I don't give you or others the same courtesy. I'm not sure that it helps progress the debate. You know where I'm coming from. I am ground troops but anything more would defeat the anonymity of the forum we join. Manager? I suppose I manage some but I am manged by many more!!
My line hasn't changed much. Fairly straitforward argument. I think this is about BALPA (BACC) seeking to control BA's business decisions. Why ?
Well, most unions will, I agree, seek to grow their membership when all other things are equal. BALPA is not "most" unions.
For one, they are in the pocket of BACC and secondly, it is in the interest of all BA pilots to restrict entry - thus protecting progress to plan of curent incumbants.
No-one in the BACC seriously believes this is an issue of job security - they have all but admitted as much in public forums.
So what is this all about? My view.
Control.
BACC are uncomfortable with BA setting up an offshore operation. Loads of companies have done so successfully and this need not be at the expense of the workers at base. BACC do not trust BA and want to constrain BA's ability to do so. The BACC method is to ensure that access to command is all BA MSL (hence restricting entry / progress to DEPs) and BA will pay the price by providing access to all O/S DEPs to the BA MSL .
BACC wins all heads up!!
Why shouldn't O/S pilots have automatic access to the BA MSL? Because they will owe their future to mainline BA and the 24 pps and will be trusted to not rock the boat and "compete". BACC has already said that it would expect the "gap" to be closed or "share the growth" when O/S hit profitability, which is odd since they also say they will be hands off.
In truth, if they get their way, BACC will control /own BA flying however its dressed up.
Why would any company agree to that?
Reason enough to strike on its merits or because you're just naffed off!

900

Forgive me if I don't read your post:
:rolleyes:

Pressman,
If you want the job, go for it!
Pay no attention whatsoever to the 'recruitment ban'.
1. By the time you are trained and checked out (by whom?) this will be history.
2. Who is going to be commanding your flight?

Basil - supporting the BALPA action but been there, do.. my kids can recite the rest :O

You are forgiven.
 

Tandemrotor,
Of course, it's still a free country.
However, if you truly want a debate, then two sides is better than one!

900, I fear you are right about not progressing the debate, but I've got 5 minutes...

A union in the pocket of its members. Blimey, whatever next

This has completely lost me. Why would I not want people to join below me on the seniority list? Stopping people joining or stopping growth of the company would seem a much better way of stopping my 'progress to plan', whatever that is?

Ummmmm, where?

So my union wants to ensure that all flying done by company mainline aircraft is done by company mainline pilots. How radical. And that somehow means that we control the company. Any chance you could take a photo of the sky next time you are at work 900? I'd love to know what colour it is in your world.

So there must be some reason why you refuse to read the postings of Shaka!

Presumably because it does not 'help to progress the debate'!

Well neither does yours!

Goodbye.

I can live with not being a TV star on the day. Fact is, the message reached its intended recipients.

Ignore it if you like. If there's one thig BA management is very good at - its not listening.:ugh:

Poor old 900, he must get frustrated when he goes to all that effort to post the management line from internal comms and then everybody shoots him down. Still, I suppose BS x a refusal to listen x arrogance = the BA way.

900,

"No-one in the BACC seriously believes this is an issue of job security - they have all but admitted as much in public forums."

:confused::rolleyes:

Now you're being just plain silly. Go and see the headmaster now and tell him you've not been listening. :=

Definitely last time this time
 

You each attack me for saying something you do not agree with. Am I allowed to have my view or woud you rather I kept it to myself?
Interestingly, I'm guessing mostly you prefer liberty to the alternative.
I recognise your anger but e-bullying is still bullying.
If anyone would like to actually answer my points, that'd be good, otherwise I'll just hover & read.
God bless (on Good Friday) x

900 I'd support the "hovering and reading" option, especially as you seem unable to distinguish between "e-bullying" and the fact that some others find your opinions ... well... you decide on what words fit. Express your views if you must, but don't expect to be taken too seriously!

900

The reason you perceive that you are being bullied is because your posts are so far from reality that they are laughable.

Of course you are entitled to your views but when they are incorrect/based on fantasy/blinkered or just plain wrong is it any wonder you irritate the heck out of those of us who have taken the time to read very carefully that which has been published from both sides and can clearly see what the future holds should we not resist what BA are wanting to do to us.