QANTAS - Australia II

[TightSlot]

Please post your comments about QANTAS here.

[Shlonghaul]

Thank you Tightslot for declaring the first innings closed........(9 for 602....what a great score!)

Now let the games continue..........Have you seen the QF Cityflyer TV ad showing some dropkick w@nker hosting a business meeting and boring the people in the room with spintalk so much that one of them connects to the internet to book a flight so that he does'nt have to put up with the BS any longer? Well it's time QF executives had a good look in the mirror!!!

Another flight and the worst IFE problems I've ever experienced......will they ever get this fixed??!! By the way check out the Singapore Airlines website and take a look at what they're about to have onboard their new 777s. Check out all classes..........mindblowing!!

[TightSlot]

Thank you Tightslot for declaring the first innings closed........(9 for 602....what a great score!)
Every dog has its' day, so enjoy yours!!! - thank you for that totally gratuitous and sadistic reminder of what will no doubt prove to be only a temporary glitch in Englands' seemless progress towards world cricket domination.



I'm sorry - I just wanted to see if I could get the words "England", "Cricket" and "domination" into the same paragraph without crying - I can't...

:{ :{ :{

[Shlonghaul]

Thanks Tightslot but we have'nt won this test yet........but it sure looks good!!! ....... and you have the consolation that the Poms still hold the Ashes...........at least until the end of this series :ok:

[roamingwolf]

Tightslot,

Ian Botham was being interviewed this afternoon (Australian time) and reminded the audience that although we look as if we have this one in the bag , we won the first test last time as well but look what happened after that.The wheels fell off that one so I hope it doesn't happen again.

So here's hoping it's a good summer and may the best team win.

And back to reality ,it looks as though the company that leases a number of our aircraft to us is /maybe /wants to be part of the consortium trying to buy us.

One minute we're leasing aircraft from them and the next thing you know they are thinking of buying us and leasing us out....Just a touch of irony there .

[Tropicalchief]

Shlonghaul,

Check your schedules mate, internationally QF flies to about about a dozen destinations in its own right, domestically, the capital cities except Hobart, in fact it does not fly to Tasmania at all. Regional services are done by subsidiary airlines, all one class, no choice. No first class to Japan, Honolulu, Mumbai, Johannesburg, Manila or Djarkarta. Most of the mentioned destinations will be "served" by Jetstar in the near future, again no choice. First class round trip from SYD to JFK $20000+, business class $16000+, who do Qantas compete with, no-one. Thai Airways can operate two flights a day to Sydney from Bangkok, Qantas one, Brisbane three times a week, Qantas none, Perth three times a week, Qantas none, Cathay, Cairns to HKG three times a week, soon to be six, Qantas none. Anywhere in the South Pacific, Qantas none, same in South America, same in Europe except FRA and LHR.

Qantas has become a ferry service for Australian passengers from SYD to those places where QF management feel safe and to bring them home again. It does not compete with anyone. Thai Airways International and Singapore Airlines, in their First Class cabins are still doing what QF used to do ten years ago, caviar, lobster, foie gras, oysters, silver service, experienced cabin crew, sublime luxury. The accommodations in QF P/C set a new "park bench" mark in comfort and the cuisine is nothing more than sidewalk cafe food. GD's cost cutting has set a new high in mediocrity. Economy class is not worth the mention and J/C is not much better.

Sorry for the rant, but it irks me that a formerly great airline has been reduced to a rump for the personal financial gratification of its management.

[Shlonghaul]

Sorry for the rant, but it irks me that a formerly great airline has been reduced to a rump for the personal financial gratification of its management.
Ditto :ok:

[roamingwolf]

Tropicalchief,

"GD's cost cutting has set a new high in mediocrity. "

Anywhere else and that statement would be a contradiction in terms but QF has made it a motto with the exception of remuneration for board members of course.

[Flugbegleiter]

Hi all.

Does anyone know anything about blankets being flushed down aircraft toilets? The QF64 from JNB was delayed almost 24 hours earlier this week because the toilets were not working. Engineers initially found that a blanket had been flushed down the toilet, then, on further investigation, 3 (or 4?) more blankets were found flushed down other toilets. Big repair job - big delay. This was fact.

Now, the rumour I have also heard from a ground engineer upline is that there were about 4 aircraft grounded for the same reason.

I think this is probably a case of chinese whispers, but I am wondering if anyone else has heard anything about this...

[Bolty McBolt]

Does anyone know anything about blankets being flushed down aircraft toilets?

From what I know it's no Chinese whispers. Aircraft in LAX last week multiple blankets in toilet system , The QF 64 in JNB 20 hours late same defect and OJP (kangaroo fleet) being fixed same defect on Friday night in SYD.

CC as a whole (hole) are blamed for Sabotage.
You guys are your own worst enemies because any sypathy for your plight flys out the window when havoc is created and someone else has to clean up the mess..

[Flugbegleiter]

From what I know it's no Chinese whispers. Aircraft in LAX last week multiple blankets in toilet system , The QF 64 in JNB 20 hours late same defect and OJP (kangaroo fleet) being fixed same defect on Friday night in SYD.
CC as a whole (hole) are blamed for Sabotage.
You guys are your own worst enemies because any sypathy flys out the window when havoc is created and someone else has to clean up your mess..
Yeah, that sounds kind of like what I heard. And I agree with your comment. I am hoping that CC are not responsible for this. As much as I despise what is currently happening in our once great organisation, this kind of action is alarming and not something that will win any friends.

There must be some pretty upset people out there if it has come to this, though. And it could be anyone - if these aircraft were "sabotaged" before they left Sydney, the culpit could be anyone! There are a LOT of unhappy QF staff out there, from all departments in the company. CC are not the only ones with access to aircraft...

[cartexchange]

Bolty........
How do you know its CC.
There is no reason why CC would want to delay a departure of an a/c such as QF64 its a long enough tour of duty as it is, why would you want to make it even more punishing?
you should be careful about making such outrageous statements.
What proof do you have that it was CC.
SHAME ON YOU!

[Bolty McBolt]

CART
I made no such allegation nor do I have proof.
I merely relayed the sentiment of the engineers on the front line whom have to remove these blankets from the toilet system. A very ****ty job. The fact that this happened across 3 aircraft in a week would make anyone suspicious. And there are other cases of sabotage which have been going on for months, the way the drains are blocked by a certain object (which I won’t name here) We engineers often find a dozen of these objects in drains system when the Y class galley drain blocks up.

Cart I am sure you would speak for your self in saying that you would do no such stupid act but can you speak for every single LH CC.
I have only written what many are thinking based on circumstantial evidence, you have a right to be outraged but if you look at the same “incident” happening thrice in a week it would appear that it was planned.

[cartexchange]

QF keep a record of all operating crew and details.
It would be quite easy to Cross reference the flights and see if they are manned by the same persons.
Although at first it may seem obvious that it is a CC, that may not be the case.
Don't forget bolty that a lot of CC are ex engineers and some of the stories they have divulged to us do not make our engineering staff being above certain questionable acts!
lets not get into a slanging match as it serves no purpose!
The individuals involved may be the last people we suspect!
Even though we may have some bad apples amongst us I doubt very much that we could have someone so irresponsible to do that,we spend most of our time apologizing and fixing toilets and equipment not sabotaging it!
The individual or individuals concerned in this act are obviously very sick and need help.........like a boot up the @rse the sack and fined.

[surfside6]

3 a/c in a week suggests a group of individuals...bastards.
The QF 63 (OJP)leaving sydney on thursday had 6 toilets U/S 3 hours out of JNB.
Find the culprits and crucify them.
Bugger the Company but dont hurt your colleagues.
Personally I dont think its CC...but it bloody well needs to stop.
In LAX , a few months, ago multiple interphones were being damaged (for awhile) causing delays of several hours

[chemical alli]

[quote=cartexchange;2986494]QF keep a record of all operating crew and details.
It would be quite easy to Cross reference the flights and see if they are manned by the same persons.
Although at first it may seem obvious that it is a CC, that may not be the case.
Don't forget bolty that a lot of CC are ex engineers and some of the stories they have divulged to us do not make our engineering staff being above certain questionable acts!
lets not get into a slanging match as it serves no purpose!
The individuals involved may be the last people we suspect!
Even though we may have some bad apples amongst us I doubt very much that we could have someone so irresponsible to do that,we spend most of our time apologizing and fixing toilets and equipment not sabotaging it!YES THEY DO KEEP RECORDS AND YES THEY ARE CROSS REFERENCING CREW/FLIGHTS WITH TOILET /BLANKET ISSUES, SO TO THE BUNG HOLE BANDIT WHOEVER SHE/HE MAYBE , BE WARNED CENTRE LINK MAY AWAIT

[Flugbegleiter]

Hey, look on the bright side - at least it is keeping some engineers in a job ;-) Imagine if nothing ever broke down or went wrong... Ummm, no? *JOKE* Oh, that's right - no jokes or I get a clause 11! Woops.

[twiggs]

Sounds like the STR campaign has started again.

[stubby jumbo]

'have heard from a VERy reliable source that this rumour is indeed CORRECT.

There is a full on investigation taking place as we speak !!!

They ( Management) have 1 suspect, after pulling rosters apart.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Sure we all bitch and winge on here at times, but this act is the lowest of low.:mad:

This individual...... if prooven guilty should be booted with no representation .

No wonder Management thinks we're all scumbags.

[Gone U/S]

The rumour mill is in overdrive at the moment about the blanket down the toilet affair. At least it gives us all something else to talk about instead of job security.
From what i've heard it appears the blanket was stuffed on the outbound SYDJNB sector QF63 and caused a large leakage into the hold of the aircraft on the return sector QF64 when the pipes burst... will let you all imagine what i am talking about there.
And yes, there is a full investigation going on and i think someone will be losing more than just there staff travel benefits. *(Speaking of which have you seen the great NOT deals on offer to us with JQ International)*
Also ...
This aircraft OJP arrived in on friday as QF64 and was supposed to operate as the QF31 that afternoon/night. Subsequently this flight was cancelled and 300+ people overnighted in hotels or sent home in cabs for the following day.
On Saturday OJP operated the QF1 which left the terminal and returned due to engineering. Again overnighting of almost 400 passengers and departing sunday morning. A good decision for those passengers who had chosen this flight instead of the QF31 delay flight. A complete nightmare from what i heard and it even made the Sunday Telegraph today (although how the newspaper says the aircraft came from CHC i dont want to know).
Can you imagine how those passengers felt who were booked on QF31 (fri) and then QF1 (sat) felt. Luckily OJP successfully operated the QF1 (sun).
:O Well there is my spiel for the night. Hope you all get your kicks from it :O

[TightSlot]

Apologies for stepping in again...

If these rumours are true, then there exists a possibiliy of criminal proceedings being taken against those ultimately accused of these actions, not just in terms of criminal damage, but in terms of endngering the safety of the aircraft.

Therefore, may I ask you to ensure that future comments made on PPRuNe do not, even by inference, name individuals or expose PPRuNe in any way to litigation, or even complaint: Posts that do so, even if inadvertantly, will be deleted.

Thanks for your help.

[Redstone]

From what i've heard it appears the blanket was stuffed on the outbound SYDJNB sector QF63 and caused a large leakage into the hold of the aircraft on the return sector QF64 when the pipes burst... will let you all imagine what i am talking about there.

"the blanket" was more than one. The spill into the bilge of the bulk cargo area was not caused by burst pipes, the collection tanks had to be opened from the bottom at the outlet because they could not be emptied (blankets in the tanks).

Now, it is my opinion that the only way to get a blanket to flush down a vac lav would be to do it at altitude. On the ground the blower in the system just doesn't have the guts. The genius responsible is not helping the cause and deserves what they get. It is not funny when you are the poor sod elbow deep in crap fishing these things out of a half full toilet tank.

It may seem like the perfect way to ground an a/c (no crappers) but is mindless vandalism at best. The cc has drawn the ire of the engineers in Sydney base over this, so don't be surprised if the shoulder is a little cool. Find the imbecile and stop them.

[TightSlot]

3 posts now deleted in 10 minutes - all aggressive in tone, and including personal attacks - you may disagree with Redstone, but he has made his point without resorting to abuse and invective: His post is an understandable reaction from somebody who is at the business end of fixing the problem. Irritated engineers are not the problem - blankets in toilets are, if the rumour mill is accurate.

Cool heads will make for better judgement, so stay cool.

[lowerlobe]

Twiggs,

Ok I'm curious so I'll bite.

What do you mean by a STR campaign or what does the acronym STR stand for?

By the way this sort of behaviour by whoever is insane and does not do one iota of good especially as tightslot said for the people at the business end of fixing it not to mention the cost of the delays both to the customer and the company and our reputation.

[Pegasus747]

I totally agreee with Tightslot. There is potential for this to be a criminal offence and as far as i am concerned, whoever is found to be the culprit needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If it is found to be aircrew or cleaning or engineering then as far as i am concerned no airline should have an employee like this on the payroll and the matter should be referred to the appropriate legal authorities and not the Qantas Keystone cops who have a habit of cocking up most investigations.

Cabin Crew should not have to put up with this sort of mindless vandalism that borders on an act of terrorism as far as i am concerned. I find it hard to believe that a cabin crew member could behave this way but if proven to be any sort of crew...then no flight attendant would have any sympathy for the person concerned.

To suggest that Cabin Crew as a community would receive any cold shoulder from Engineering of anyone else in the Airline Community would be an unnecessary over reaction. No flight attendant would condone this behaviour and i am sure when the culprit is found then the rest of the Cabin Crew would be glad to have him/her out of our ranks

[ditzyboy]

Shlonghaul,

Check your schedules mate, internationally QF flies to about about a dozen destinations in its own right, domestically, the capital cities except Hobart, in fact it does not fly to Tasmania at all.

Qantas flies to HBA.

[lowerlobe]

whereabouts on the map of tassie is Hobart?

ps....As Pegasus has said be under no misunderstanding the act of doing anything that is destructive to property IS a criminal act.

[sydney s/h]

I think......

STR = Screw The Roo.

Correct?!

[cartexchange]

I find Redstone's comment about cabin crew receiving the cold shoulder totally out of line, how could you possibly blame all CC for this act of vandalism by given them the cold shoulder.

I find that line totally incomprehensible.

[twiggs]

Lowerlobe,
do a search in pprune/cabin crew for "screw the roo".
You will see how some QF crew behaved on here in 2004 leading up to EBAVII and the LHR base.

[Redstone]

Just recounting the general mood Friday night Cart, I know 99.99% of CC are totaly professional and do an excellent job under difficult conditions, hence your reaction. It is frustrating and beyond belief. If only the culprit or culprits knew (where ever they come from) that these sorts of acts do not upset "Qantas" the airline as such but the poor slobs who have to clean up the mess.

[speedbirdhouse]

Conflict concern over Qantas boss stakes
Richard Gluyas
November 27, 2006
REPORTS that Qantas management could take a 1 per cent stake in any takeover of the national airline have aroused concern among investors about possible conflicts.
A consortium featuring Macquarie Bank, US-based Texas Pacific Group and Canada's Onex is believed to be preparing to lodge a bid valuing Qantas at up to $11 billion.

While the carrier has said the approach is confidential, incomplete and under investigation by the company, the consortium is already conducting due diligence ahead of putting a proposal to the board.

There have been reports, furthermore, that Qantas management, including chief executive Geoff Dixon, could get around 1 per cent of the airline, worth $110 million, as an incentive.

Mr Dixon has played down the reports, releasing a brief statement on Friday saying he had had no discussions with any member of the consortium on his "future role, remuneration or equity in any new company".

This was in line with protocols set up by the Qantas board, he said.

Australian Shareholders Association chairman Stephen Matthews said there was a question surrounding the sufficiency of any protocols, given Mr Dixon's critical role.

"The CEO is key to both sides -- the bidders as well as the board, some of whom might want Qantas to remain a listed company," Mr Matthews said.

"But Mr Dixon might also have an interest in getting Qantas out of the public spotlight to achieve some of his targets in cost reduction. It's unclear how that's all going to be dealt with."

If the takeover bid proceeds and is successful, Qantas is expected to take a more aggressive approach to reducing costs, including changes to the working conditions of staff.

As a legacy airline, pay and conditions for Qantas workers are superior to those at Jetstar, the airline's no-frills start-up.

One industry expert, however, predicted Qantas's heavily unionised workforce would fight a concerted battle against reduced pay and conditions, regardless of whether the airline was in public or private ownership.

[lowerlobe]

Twigs,

Thanks for you info but I am sure that 99.99999% of crew who feel the need to vent their unhappiness with the company by vocally supporting the STR campaign would not condone nor involve themselves with anything that involves any damage or sabotage to anyones property.

Crew might talk loosely about this and that but to actually do something along the lines of this latest discussion I believe to be limited to an individual at worst ( I hope).

I'm sure you would agree that crew as a group would not lower themselves to a criminal act no matter how unhappy they are with the company.

This sort of sensless act does nothing to address our feelings with the company but only makes life difficult and unreasonably so for the people who have to rectify the damage.

If a person is found guilty of this act then as well as being sacked they should be made to clean out aircraft toilets for a 3 month period if not longer instead of going to the slammer.

[flyboynath]

Can we get off commenting on Twiggs posts every 5 minutes and stay focused on the topic at hand? It's getting very tiresome.....

[stubby jumbo]

Have heard some rather ordinary feedback on the airline of CHOICE.

Apparently the SYD-HKT ( Phuket) flight last week was a "nightmare".

Anyone ( QF- L/H ) who has previously operated the A-330-200 to PER would understand exactly what happened.

SYD-PER flight time is 4.40 hrs TOD.
SYD-HKT flight time is 8.50 hr TOD.

For those who have done the Math.....this is double the flight time.

At the end of PER flights, there was no room in the bins,toilets stunk,galleys congested,pax all over the place and no where to go!!!

The Jet * HKT flight had all the hallmarks of the above plus more. As most pax in the Y/C cabin brought on a mountain of food-naturally where do you dispose of all the rubbish. And yes -it was freezing-$15.00 per blanket.Only 1 problem.......not enough blankets.

Sure, its only very early days. And yes they will probably get their act together over time.....due to their hard working energetic crews. Lets hope their 787 is more suited to an International operation.

But.....be warned, SQ have made it known that there SQ and Silk Air ( ex SIN) operation will match Jet * any day PLUS you get a meal, movie and blankey for nix !!! :ouch:

[Eden99]

28 November 2006 ID70-06

Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants

LARGE QANTAS MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS RESOUNDINGLY SUPPORT FAAA DIRECTION

Members would be aware that the recent series of 21 FAAA Qantas members’ meetings concluded on Friday 17 November.

The attendance at these meetings was an all time record, apart from the strike meeting in 2003. A total of 814 members attended this series of meetings indicating that cabin crew are interested in the challenges and issues that will have a huge impact on them in the coming year or so.

These meetings had a twin objective. Firstly, to brief our membership in Qantas Long Haul about the Howard Governments draconian anti-worker industrial laws and secondly, to discuss the industrial stance that the FAAA should adopt to deal with the serious challenges confronting Long Haul.

The following resolution was put at the meetings “ THIS MEETING ENDORSES A PRAGMATIC FAAA INDUSTRIAL POLICY WHICH WILL AIM TO PROTECT THE JOB SECURITY AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF OUR MEMBERS WHILST RECOGNISING THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL CIRCUMSTANCES”.

The voting result was as follows:

FOR - 810

AGAINST-1

ABSTENTIONS – 3

I thank the membership for this overwhelming support and I also take the opportunity to thank many of you for your individual statements of support and your kind comments about how the meetings were conducted.

The FAAA will now try to achieve an EBA 8, which will attempt to produce conditions conducive for growth, promotion and job security in Long Haul. Clearly, our members have understood the realities that face us, and that serious and difficult decisions must be at least contemplated if we are going to have a secure future.



20 Ewan Street Mascot NSW 2020 Tel 61 2 8337 1111 Fax 61 2 8337 1122 Emergency Contact 0414 894 192


In relation to the hostile anti- worker industrial laws; the message is simple; the Howard Government must be “sacked” consistent with its laws that have made it easier for employers to sack their employees.

The FAAA will intensify the campaign against Howard leading up to the federal election. We will ensure every cabin crew member in Long Haul and Australian Airlines understand that voting for Howard = destruction of working conditions and job security.

Once again, thanks to all of you for your tremendous support. In these difficult times it is personally heartening and encouraging to see that we are all sticking together in an unprecedented way and that the FAAA International Division’s elected officials have such strong support from the membership.


Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.

[surfside6]

Latest CC News makes a small mention of the "Engagement Survey" Results
!.Employees have a strong loyalty to the brand
2.There has been a significant improvement in the relationsgip with managers.
Note..managers...not management.
Which managers?...onboard managers perhaps but certainly not the"Visiting Management".
The management who has yet to have any of their Clause 11s validated by a court.
Good Lord these people live in Fantasyland
On a happier note... there is a rumour that is gathering momentum that the Black Widow is soon to be moved sideways and down

[RedTBar]

Tightslot,

What happened to some of our posts ? We were talking about the political situation in Australia and I’ve come back and they appear to have been deleted!

When I last looked there was no abuse or possibility or risk of litigation or complaint so I assume your guidlines were being met especially compared to other instances.

[stubby jumbo]

Darth and the boys must be breathing a sigh of relief over their Chardies tonight , knowing that the Comm Bank has jumped first and taken some heat off the launch of the AWA's.

Everyone hates the banks.........so it just runs straight off them-hardly newsworthy or surprising.

BUT, now the REAL game is soon to begin.

The Equity Group machinations will give the Board the mandate they need to roll out ( sorry -OFFER!!!) AWA's.

My prediction is that its all going to happen sooner rather than later.:uhoh:

[TightSlot]

Tightslot,
What happened to some of our posts ? We were talking about the political situation in Australia and I’ve come back and they appear to have been deleted!
When I last looked there was no abuse or possibility or risk of litigation or complaint so I assume your guidlines were being met especially compared to other instances.

Sorry if you've missed this from previous QF threads, maybe I should have posted a reminder.

We don't do politics here - we do aviation and cabin crew in particular. There are other sites where you can discuss political issues. These QF threads tend to get exciting enough without adding politics to the mix.

[RedTBar]

Tightslot,

Thanks for your explanation .I was actually agreeing with Speedbirdhouse but I understand what you are saying.

On another note I know this is a rumour network but I think we have to be more careful when talking about or even referring to other cabin crew or anyone for that matter especially when this involves a criminal act.

I noticed that a few days ago there was a post from someone about a screw the roo campaign probably being associated with the blanket issue.

Today in the D & G section there is a post from someone who is saying cabin crew are involved in an active campaign of industrial sabotage called screw the roo.

To even infer that this was cabin crew or anyone else is very dangerous.If you have proof that it was anyone then you should go to the police but to suggest it was us or any group without proof is almost criminal because as we all know mud sticks and that can be damaging to anyone or any group.

I don't know about anyone else but I do care about cabin crew's reputation which also reflects on me and although it may turn out to be a cabin crew individual who is responsible I don't care to be labelled with this sort of aberrant behaviour.

[roamingwolf]

Yeah I have to go along with that.I don't want anyone to think I am some lunatic who vandalises property because I am cabin crew.To post here that is the case is crazy just because some crew are unhappy with the company and vocalise about it.

We also had the phrase TJF and that does not mean anything other than the Job is #$@*&$ and not that we are into industrial sabotage.I don't know what some here think they are posting but a lot of people read these posts so think twice or thrice in some cases about the effect of what you are saying before you post a claim like that.

Besides that there is a rumour that some S/H crew have recieved their VR but not all

[sydney s/h]

Roaming wolf,

The VR is no rumour - approx 60crew missed out on the package and it only went down to 15yrs seniority.

[roamingwolf]

Sydney S/H

Do you know how many guys and girls have taken the package ?

As you said that the VR only went down to 15 years then there are probably a lot of disapointed crew

I thought that S/H was short (no pun intended) of crew at present.I thought I had seen another post telling us that you guys were short of crew .

If that is true I wonder why the company wanted to offer it?

[sydney s/h]

Mate i heard figures of 160 (all bases) but certainly dont quote on that.

Yeap, your spot on - we are VERY short - hence most weekends the Nou and AKL's go to LH.

The problem is that alot of the casuals on contract B dont make themselves available for weekend work (they dont get any extra $$) so every weekend they struggle.

In saying that, i have been drafted alot even on weekdays.

Why they offered it? Dunno, maybe a goodwill gesture (i use that term very loosely) before they totally fist us!

[surfside6]

After the completion of the LH VR my seniority remained unchanged for about 5 weeks then moved up about 50 slots .....since then nothing.
A mate in SH has been given VR but as yet is still flying.
Perhaps the exodus will be done in tranches?

[sydney s/h]

Surfside - spot on.

Yeap - 2 release dates. 31 Dec 06 and 31 Jan 07.

To get us through the "holiday period".

Burn the sick leave i say.

[qcc2]

AdvertisementQantas Airways Ltd has lifted its 2006/07 profit guidance, and now expects its profit before tax for the year to be up to 30 per cent above last year's result.

"As a result of strong trading conditions and subject to fuel prices remaining around current levels, (Qantas) expects its reported profit before tax for 2006/07 to be 25 to 30 per cent above the 2005/06 result," the airline said in a statement.:* :*
Dear FAAA,
keep your doom&gloom scenario and get on with the job of getting a descent outcome next year (i mean you have time to do some proper research on issues).there appears to be no rush now as the qf,s position looks pretty rosy.;)

Air NZ is doing a health check on its pilots which stayed last month at the millenium hotel in london. there was a meeting at the hotel lobby with the now deceased russian ex kgb agent who died of uranium oxide.

[DEFCON4]

Just because things look a bit rosier for QF doesnt mean its management will change its attitude to its staff.
AWAs are still looking likely.
I would rather have the doom and gloom scenario and be surprised by a better outcome than have a rosy picture with a lousy outcome.
If the buyout happens...it will be slash and burn.

[Eden99]

qcc2 your comments clearly indicate that you just don't get it.

DEFCON4 was right in his comments. The fact that Qantas is going to increase its profits this coming year does not relieve the pressure on Long Haul.

The FAAA is completely correct in its assessment of the threatening situation confronting L/H.

Unless, the gap between L/H and S/H, Australian Airlines, Jetstar International, MAM casuals and overseas based crew is narrowed , we in L/H remain a very exposed and threatened species.

If Howard wins it will be a total bloodbath. Even if Labor wins, we still have the biggest problem still confronting us and it is that "gap" i referred to above.

Overlaid on all of this is the Macquarie bank takeover that really would spell disaster for L/H crew.

The FAAA is right to plan for the worst outcome. It's good they are planning industrial policy and strategy rather than qcc2.

[twiggs]

QCC2 you seem obsessed with what other crew in other parts of the world are earning and how much profit the company is making.

The only thing the company considers when negotiating with us is who they can give our flying to to get the job done for less money.

No company in the world would stop trying to make more money by reducing costs, just because they have previously made a good profit.

The only other airlines that we can compare to when negotiating, are the ones that are being given our flying. eg S/H and AO and JQ

[mamslave]

whether there is a mam forum or not, i would belive that qf issues are mam issues, it affects all of us.

telling mam crew not to post here is just childish!

also sydney s/h i dont think u should blame mam crew for not working every weekend. Would you work weekends if you were not getting your bands? Me thinks not! Then again many crew that i still know are doing only weekends, they get the best flying.

[roamingwolf]

The only problem with Eden99's post is that he has just told the company that we are going to cave in.

The only question the company does not know is how far but with nothing to barter with and the known stance of the FAAA they can guess?

So again and as usual the company is in the box seat because the company knows that we are willing to do that to keep our jobs.

I suppose though that is OK because it is the destinations that are important and not the money.

I reckon what qcc2 was trying to say is that with the increased profit forecast by the company is that a little PR on our part about the amount that the board is getting and with an increased profit not to mention the rally the other day about the IR laws and the upcoming Federal election is that we should be more aggressive and not just give in as Twiggs,Eden99 and Pegasus would have us do.

(Waiting now for accustomed,predictable and typical response from union officials and company plants)

[roamingwolf]

Defcon,

I agree with you as you can see the attitude of some supposed crew here and what they post but to post (as EDEN99 has done) here on a public forum is not SMART at all.

Why not just send it or fax it to the company?

[speedbirdhouse]

If that were the case then you [and who you represent :rolleyes: ] wouldnt feel the need to post here, now would you......?

Those who read the posts from L/H Cabin Crew might like to know of the attrocious results from the QF/Hewitt group engagement surveys.......

The worst results from ANY company in the Hewitt Group's history.

The results a legacy of the maltreatment, bullying, harrasment, hypocracy, lies and spin from those that run this once proud and happy place of work.

There is thread that discusses these issues on the D&G forum and contains the thoughts of others within the organisation.

A quick read will confirm that the feelings WE expree on this forum are NOT an oberration as our friend Twiggs suggests.....

Rather they are held company wide and are systematic of both a toxic place to work and a fundamentally sick organisation.

This company is being run [into the ground] for the benefit of the board and senior executives and as a 20 year employee is saddens me to watch what is happening around me.

[qcc2]

twiggs ,eden and the rest. iam not obsesssed with overseas salaries and conditions.however since AW and offsiders did their presentation and compared lh f/a's (only oz based crew) to our so called competitors we found a lot of holes in their presentation.
we, that is a number fo collegues& myself (incl. s/h guys)had/ have ongoing drinks (nothing a bottle of red or two couldn't fix) and discussed the meetings. accidently, we ended up going to most presentations individually at different places. the graphs the company showed are distorted and do not reflect a true picture. s/h is not cheaper then l/h.(as one of the guys told us when some one ask the companies rep at the meeting). thats one of the reasons research is so important in negotiations. and i really meant that MM has to get of his scare campaign. most collegues know what the politicial landscape is or maybe after the next election. twiggs i must disagree with your comments the only comparison we have to do is s/h,J* AO. my views expressed here are not just the of a minority, i would say i represent the view of many, which i share a glass of vino with, at whatever port.;)

[twiggs]

Speedbirdhouse,
I represent myself, a QF L/H F/A.
I believe my views are more representative of the mainstream.
I never said that the airline is not disengaged.
What I have said is that the people here are too scared for the people who read this forum to know exactly what our pay and conditions are.
Is that because they know that our pay and conditions are superior to any one else in the industry and want to pretend that they are less than they actually are?

[surfside6]

Who was it who said"destinations are more important than money"?
Whoever it was, represents no one but themselves and is best characterised as someone who is way way out of touch with the mainstream.

[TightSlot]

Anybody can claim to represent a silent majority - anybody can claim that somebody else doesn't. The great thing is that nobody can prove anything.

Try not to get provoked into one of these circular arguments - they are pointless.

[RedTBar]

Tightslot is right and that is arguments with twiggs usually go around in circles as she contradicts herself at every opportunity just for the sake of an argument so it is, as usual an exercise in futility.

Just to prove my point here is the latest from Twiggs…

“Surfside6,
what I said was the job was about the destinations.
I never said they were more important or less important than money.”

And here is what she said previously that Surfside was referring to...

“I think everyone has lost sight of what this job is about, and it aint money.
It's about the destinations.”

So in her own words it…… AINT MONEY …..But today she claims she never said money was not important.

QED

Let’s just continue with our topic and basically that is what we can do to embarrass the company and negotiate a fair outcome with out emptying our bank account

[qcc2]

to the point:D :D :D :D

[mid assist]

Lowerlobe,

I came across Jetstar as a listed reality (lifestyle) program to be screened on ch9 next year. I think it was in the Daily Telegraph last week. I'm sure with the clientele that Jetstar attract, there would be plenty of dramas! Yet another brain washing exercise by JQ.
Let's see how long it lasts!

[roamingwolf]

I think the program will be called 46 hours with J* and will be shown nightly because apparently there is only one night in 46 hours.

[keeperboy]

Hey there guys,

Here at BA, LHR we are balloting for strike action. This is partly due to pension issues etc, but also partly to some new procedures a certain ex QF cabin crew manager, initials MH wants to implement. And not so much just about WHAT he wants to implement but more about his TACTICS, his general behaviour (wolf in sheeps clothing springs to mind) his arrogance and bullying.

If anyone from QF would like to shed any light on this little man and what impact he had at QF in oz, do tell! Either on the forum here, or PM if you prefer.

Cheers, keeps.

[qcc2]

PLD (poisend little dwarf) as i recall:ugh: :yuk:

[DEFCON4]

A lot of what is happening in QF CC is directly attributal to MH.
The fear and intimidation,the bullying,the spying dobbing culture are all down to him.
Nothing more than a smiling asassin.
Definitley not be trusted
He doesnt even know how to spell morale
The sad thing is he used to fly
He is gone but his legacy remains
Good luck..you`ll need it

[NIGELINOZ]

Quoting Lowerlobe:"The general public thinks that we should do the job free because we get to fly and travel for nix because of our job."
I may not be employed in the industry but I do fly a lot with QF and I
certainly do not think that way,I ,on the contrary,have great respect for the professionalism shown by the great majority of aviation employees in Oz,I suspect that there are some horror stories about pax etc that you could tell but I really wish to add my support to your cause,and I care about how much you are paid because and only because your terms and conditions may(may!) affect how you feel about the company and that may affect how you treat me and other passengers.
Please don't assume that all pax are ignorant of what you have to put up with,there will always be rude passengers but I hope that mostly they appreciate what you do.
I hope I made my point generously.
Keep up the good work:)

[NIGELINOZ]

Point taken,Lowelobe.
I should have also added that I care about your pay because you deserve a decent wage with terms and conditions relevant to what you do.
As for the union being ineffective:sack the union at the next union election if that is what it will take to ensure that Qantas realises that they
need a committed,happy workforce or they risk going the way of Ansett.
There is a place for profit but not at the expense of an unhappy workforce which will lead to unhappy customers,without whom Qantas and any other airline will fail,even with no service airlines like Jet* to act as a cash cow.

[Pegasus747]

The problem in Australia at the moment is similar to the problem in NZ about 15 years ago. Unions were under pressure to perform miracles when the laws were directed in a hostile manner towards them and their members.

In Australia the new IR laws are doing their best to make Unions irrelevant. Most unions in qantas are doing it tought at the moment, and are finding it difficult to "pull rabbits out of hats".

The real challenge will be to remove the Howard government and bring balance back into the workplace. Unless that occurs Unions will almost be totally irrelevent.

For Long Haul Cabin Crew the issue is not whether we deserve what we earn or whether our conditions are justified. It's about supply and demand.

What some people are suggesting is that if a group of workers think that their income and conditions are justified in their minds, then they must be protected from ever losing anything.

Morally that may be correct but the market place works differently. unfortunately their whole rafts of workers in this country in industries that have all but closed because of the market forces. The challenge of for not only Long Haul crew but any full time relatively "unskilled" workers to maintain their conditions in the current market.

When i say 'unskilled' i dont mean that Long Haul crew have no skill. It just means that we can be easily replaced by those that would do our jobs for half the money, who are younger, fitter, prettier and less "industrially aware".

Meeting that challenge is a job for Unions and their members in a balanced way. Its easy to criticise the exccesses of mangement . You wont find a flight attendant, engineer or pilot or their unions who will dissagree. But until the current government is removed or "sacked" then we dont have a chance.

Look at what's happening to engineers and pilots and they are significantly more skilled than Cabin Crew and much harder to replace, yet the Company is agressively taking them on too.

The only hope we have is to back put our faith in our elected officials and support them in a united way. To be devisive now would be to sign our own death warrants

[indamiddle]

people keep saying the last survey produced the worst result ever.
does anyone know what the actual result was, have not seen it
published anywhere.

have also met a number of crew talking about the next federal election
two of whom were not even registered to vote. maybe the union mob
need to get going and encourage all crew to register and vote, whatever
their choice may be

[surfside6]

If the recent survey was even a little improved from the previous Ms Webster would be crowing about it from the top of QCC.
Instead it gets a small mention in the current CC news.
Waffles on about an improvement in CC /managers relationship.
Onboard managers perhaps but definitely not the visiting groundhogs

[Pegasus747]

Ground hogs????? god thats the best i ever heard i love it !!!!


Everytime i sign on its like ground hog day lol

wonderful

[qcc2]

Qantas bidders 'restructure $11bn offer'
Steve Creedy
Aviation writer
December 05, 2006
MEMBERS of the private equity consortium behind the proposed $11 billion takeover of Qantas have reportedly restructured their proposal to evade scrutiny by competition and foreign investment regulators.

According to today’s Financial Times, Texas Pacific Group is now planning to limit its stake to a maximum 14.9 per cent holding, instead of the rumoured investment of 25 per cent.

Canada’s Onex Corp also proposed taking an equity stake of less than 14.9 per cent.

The FT said the consortium believes this would keep them below a 15 per cent stake that would trigger a mandatory probe by Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board.

Macquarie bank was also proposing to limit its stake to 14.9 per cent, to avoid a probe by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, it said.

The remaining shareholding would be made up of Allco Finance (14.9 per cent), Pacific Equity partners (5 per cent), senior Qantas management (1 per cent) and super funds.

Qantas last week upgraded its profit expectations by 30 per cent, prompting speculation the bidders could have to pay as much as $6 per share to get board approval of the takeover.

The airline’s shares were trading at $5.13 earlier this afternoon.

Lets hope the unions are on to the superfunds and strongly object to the proposed take over.:=

[stubby jumbo]

Qantas bidders 'restructure $11bn offer'

Lets hope the unions are on to the superfunds and strongly object to the proposed take over.:=

As far as the Unions are concerned the Texans would see their contribution as = ZIP. No matter how much the combined forces of ALL Qantas unions go..... this is a DONE DEAL.

{I've been trawling thru the net and studying their form and its not a pretty picture.}

Get ready for the announcement before Christmas.

Then it will be - flog off Jetstar= $2b, sell Qantas Freight= $1.0b, Dump QFCL =$50m, offload QF Holidays= $40m...........GAME OVER.

I won't even put up a guestimate of the number of loyal staff that will go!!

Then as a private company, this bunch will cut a swathe thru the Unions as big as the Grand canyon and there is nothing anyone will be able to do. They will not have to answer to pesky shareholders,govt beauracrats -it will be rip, rort and rout.:(

Sorry to be a bearer of bad news-but this is how its looking to me.

[resboy]

Then I speak to an aussie girl working fot Jetstar Oz who reckons she's being worked up to 400 hrs a bid period - she's desperately trying to get into MAM casual position as this is seen as some sort of step up....bucket please I need to vomit.

Scratches head and looks at roster ... just over 120 hours for the calendar month ...

If we do the maths ... 31 days in december ... 10 days off a month leaves 21 working days ... that would mean if one was to work the aformentioned "400 hours" one would be working 19.047619 hours a day :D

Maybe we should all stick to the facts and cut the drama :ugh:

[qcc2]

Qantas a $400m ticket for advisers
Rod Myer
December 6, 2006

MACQUARIE Bank could earn as much as $400 million in fees if the $11 billion private equity bid for Qantas it is leading succeeds.

So much for the profit next year:ugh: :yuk: :yuk:

[Vince1]

Then I speak to an aussie girl working fot Jetstar Oz who reckons she's being worked up to 400 hrs a bid period - she's desperately trying to get into MAM casual position as this is seen as some sort of step up....bucket please I need to vomit.

Um Hi. I don't normally replied to other threads, but feel I must say something in regard to the above quote.

I feel the hours being discussed is a bit of an exaggeration. We (JQ crew) are generally rostered between 115 - 130 per month. CM's this month are on about 115 hrs and FA's 120-127 hrs. We have LIVE days (home reserve) that we can nominate to work for extra money or we can un nominate and accrue the hours, if we do this we can't work above 140hrs. However, if we keep our Days LIVE and get the money basically we can work up and beyond 140hrs, but speaking from 5 years experience (with Qlink & JQ) we would never work 400hrs. It wouldn't be possible to do in a month.

In regard to JQ crew trying to get into MAM, yes there are some crew that have this dream that the grass is greener. However, I feel this is based on the idea of doing lots of o/nites and internationally flying. Some of these crew who want this are young and sometimes inexperienced within the workforce.

Thanks,:)

[roamingwolf]

Don't forget Twiggs ,it is the destinations and and not the money or is it the money and not the destinations or did ,you say it was something else.It's so hard to remember but the important thing is that this only one night in 46 hours....just the facts twiggs ,just the facts...

Resboy,

Maybe he was talking about one of our rosters which is 56 days and not one month like yours.However with only 10 days off per roster instead of our min of 18 that still seems a bit high.Especially if you factor in the time off in slip ports as even LCC have to let you sleep sometimes.

It will be interesting to find out the T & C’s of J* international foreign based crews

[speedbirdhouse]

[B] but speaking from 5 years experience (with Qlink & JQ) we would never work 400hrs. It wouldn't be possible to do in a month.


Are jetscar international rosters 56 or 28 day in length?

[Mr Seatback 2]

JQI rosters 28 days in length, up to 152 hours per roster. Impossible at the moment due to the lack of aircraft...at this stage. 8 days off per 28 days.

JQ Domestic rosters are calendar months, up to 140 hours per roster. 10 days off per month. Key difference being you can choose to max your hours to achieve more time off towards the end of the month, or earn more money.

[Vince1]

Are jetscar international rosters 56 or 28 day in length?


"Jetscar" rosters for domestic are based on 30/31 days with 10 days off.

International as far as I know are based on 28 days with 8 days off. No days off in out ports all in home base.

:)

[Vince1]

Vince ,
What do you mean by no days off in out ports all days off in home port.

By the way ,how do you know what the T & C's for the Thai based J* in. crew are ?

The conditions for Thair based QF crew are very different to L/H Aus crew so the conditions for aus J* int crew maybe very different to their overseas bases

Twiggs ,what day of the week is this?


Hello,

What I meant about no days off in out ports is that rumor has it that the company looked at using slip days as off days while on trips.

Don't know anything about o/seas conditions. Heard not that good though.

[roamingwolf]

I'm not sure but I heard a rumour that a middle eastern airline is trying that with the pilots.So if your trip has a day off in Singapore that counts towards your days off per roster.

That'd be beaut wouldn't it.

If Aus J* int crew hours are up to 152 per roster then maybe the thai crew for J* int may be more.

If we say they do 28 days take away 8 days min rest then make it 2 rosters to make it the same as us.that makes it 40 days flying per same roster as us. That makes it 10 hours a day if they are supposed to do 400 hours .

I admit this sounds high but if J* made the Thai crew count the slip ports as days off..nahh that is still too much.tYou'd have to have into account hols,etc and they would never stay at home. Even at 152 hours or 204 in a 56 day roster that still means 7.6 per day..Not happy Jan

[prunezeuss]

Methinks I hear the patter of Tightslot`s delicate feet.:hmm:
...and Twiggs deletes her paranoid post

[jaded boiler]

Anybody like to make a prediction as to what the wage and employment package will be for QF long haul cabin crew, subsequent to the expiration of any new EBA agreed to under the present government's industrial relations regime?

Bear in mind that any new EBA agreed to now, can be unilaterally terminated by an employer with 90 days notice after its date of expiry, and also remember, that when this happens, the employer is then only legally obliged to provide the following: 10 days per annum sick leave, 12 months unpaid maternity leave, 4 weeks per annum annual leave, 38 hours per week work averaged out over 12 months, and a minimum wage of $13.47 per hour. Nothing more than this, nothing.

So what do reckon QF would do??

[roamingwolf]

I reckon with the industrial negotiation tactic of waving a white flag the result will not be pretty.If the takeout ,I mean takeover happens then the same tactic will mean most of us will be applying for either a major supermarket chain or an overseas airline.

The rumor is that MM is offering 20 hours extra a roster with no tradeoffs as long as they sign an 3 year eba now instead of next year.Will it work who knows

[surfside6]

If the buy out gets up all bets will be off.

[qcc2]

within the next two weeks if the buyout is on. at this stage it looks like its going ahead however heavy negotiations on the politicial fimpact are still ongoing. as you can imagine little jonny couldn't care less, however in an election year he is going to be very careful.:=
jaded boiler, as far as i understand it the company CANNOT unilaterally terminate an expired eba after 90 days. also your doom scenario of minimum conditions aren't quite right. let the faa guys here comment on it.:rolleyes:

[jaded boiler]

Qcc2, I can assure you, that 90 days after the expiration of any EBA that has been agreed to AFTER the new IR laws took effect last March, it can be unilaterally terminated, with your employer then only legally having to comply with the five minimum conditions stated above.

Be very wary of signing up to anything, pay rise or not. Be aware of what you are exposing yourself to.

The rates of pay and conditions of any EBA that was signed up to PRIOR to the laws changing last March remain perpetually effective after its expiry, provided no new EBA is agreed to.

Consider this scenario: sign up for new EBA for 3 years, company includes possible sweetener of, say, 1% pay rise annually. 3 years hence, EBA expires, 90 days notice is given that it is being terminated. QF then give 90 days to sign up to an AWA with a total salary package of, say, $35 000 per annum, with a caveat that if this is not agreed to in the 90 day time frame, the salary on offer will then be $26 700 (federally mandated minimum wage). Instant saving for the company of roughly $14 million per annum in wage bills for long haul cabin crew alone.

Think they haven't thought about this? Why so keen to discuss EBAs all of a sudden? Anything to do with interest by private equity, who ruthlessly use every legal means available to them to slash costs, then sell the husk of the company that remains for a profit typically in a 5 to 6 year time frame.

[Pegasus747]

"The rates of pay and conditions of any EBA that was signed up to PRIOR to the laws changing last March remain perpetually effective after its expiry, provided no new EBA is agreed to." ...Jaded boiler


Essentially this is correct..except that when a Pre reform EBA expires the Company can apply to terminate an EBA and the commission after applying a public interest test must terminate it.

The current LH EBA is a pre reform EBA and there fore subject to that.

New EBA's signed post the march 06 changes reequire 90 days notice for termination and the commission must also terminate the agreement.

If the Company decides to utilise workchoices and not have another EBA with LH crew, then after 15dec 2007 they can apply to the AIRC for termination. We as long Haul crew would then fall to the "award" that sits there still but is vastly reduced in salary and reduced to a few allowable matters.

Almost every application by employers to terminate EBA's in 2006 were succesful in their entirity.

These are very dangerous times. Those that are repeating what they are being told be the uninformed have potential to do serious damage if misnomers are accepted as fact.

For those 800 flight attendants that attended the FAAA briefing should understand these issues. I think that the LH flight attendants should be seriously worried about not getting another EBA.

I certainly hope that a new EBA can be negotiated that provides , on going job security, promotion, growth for the LH division, the current redundancy conditions and protection of core conditions.

Unless that is achieved then i believe that Individual contracts in the form of AWA's will be what is headed our way.

The next election will be about the sort of AUstralia we want to live in and hand to the next generation. I say..."DONT LET JOHN HOWARD AND WORKCHOICES THROW YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN OVERBOARD"

[roamingwolf]

The interesting part of the last post is that there is a chance that if a new eba is signed then because that was drafted after the new industrial laws it is vulnerable to being squashed.

So if we do nothing and wait until our current eba finishes we then have to do something anyway.So at best we wait 12 months but then we are back to square one.It seems that we should get some heavy weight legal advice here.

I reckon it is time to pay a few dollars each and get the big guns in the form of a qc to understand where we stand and what our best move is.

If there is any legal possibility of the new owners doing this they will because money is the bottom line to them as that is why they are buying us not because they like qf.

As there is an election next year the company will probably not want to do anything that would jeopardize the Libs so we should use that to our advantage as well.

What Pegasus is saying is essentially true but as he just repeated what jaded boiler said and that is if we sign a new eba which is post march last year then the company or whoever owns it can ask the commission to squash it.

It is not any good just to go on and on and on about throwing out Howard we must accept the possibility of him winning and act accordingly

Pegasus if we fall back to our award and how can we have a vastly reduced pay.If we are based on our award then we are on our award

So signing a new eba is no guarantee of safety either because as you said it can be removed so how is that going to give us security or promotion or anything.What is the advantage of a new eba when it can bve removed when our current eba is pre- new ir laws

We must get decent legal advice and not just from our usual source

[roamingwolf]

on something else just to lighten it up a bit.Here is a post from another thread on airport screening.


A while ago on this forum, someone suggested that the baddies could hold the pilots family hostage and force him/her to take something onto the aircraft. Thats why pilots have to be screened.

:confused:

That is the sort of moronic, illogical suff we are up against here. And the trouble is, it seems the gov has basically given security carte-blanch to do what ever they want. Say the wrong thing, like " I allready HAVE control of the aircraft buddy" to a security guy, and you could find yourself in serious hot water.


I wonder who could have said the bit about pilots families being taken hostage.

[Pegasus747]

to Roaming Wolf and anyone else interested.


Can i suggest that these issues are very complex and took the FAAA at least 3 hours to cover at their recent meetings.

The FAAA took legal advice from to industrial lawyers and then had that advice checked by Jim Nolan an industrial barrister from the denman chambers in sydney. For those that do not know,Jim Nolan is used by the pilots as well as most major unions for expert industrial legal advice.

The FAAA strategy has largely been adopted following extensive consultation and legal advice. I suggest that anyone that wants a detailed explanation call Michael Mijatov personally in the FAAA office. He will be happy to take any call at any time from members to ensure they are appropriately educated and provided with correct information. He said this publicly at the recent faaa meetings

The FAAA number is 8337 1111

Call the office and ask for MM. If you dont understand the complexity of the legal arguments he will explain it to you in simple terms as he has done at all the meetings.

Much of what is said in here is totally incorrect. The FAAA has taken expert legal advice and employs two lawyers as Industrial Officers. The FAAA will not leave any stone unturned in order to make sure it is acting in accordance with the LAW and advice from experts.

[Shlonghaul]

Interesting comments and debate about a new EBA and QF buyout qcc2, jaded boiler, peg747 and the roaming wolf. I smell a rat or maybe a MMMouse.

[roamingwolf]

I have to agree with Schlonghaul,

I reckon we have 2 options.

1: we keep our current eba and if the company wants to dismantle it the commissioner has to make a test case and it has to be successful and more than likely we stay on our award..

2: We go along the faaa preferred option which is to negotiate a new eba which Pegasus747 has admitted can be dismantled with only 90 days notice and no test case involved.

So can someone tell me the advantage of going for a new eba which is not worth the paper it is written on.

What is the rush especially when whoever owns or runs the company can apply to the commission to have the new eba null and void with only 90 days notice and not one thing we can do about it

[Guardian1]

8 December 2006 ID72-06
Attention all Qantas Long Haul and Australian Airlines Flight Attendants
FAAA INTERNATIONAL DIVISION PUTS FORWARD PLAN FOR FAAA INTEGRATION
I wish to advise members that the International Division yesterday formally responded to the Domestic/Regional Division with a plan to form the basis for integration of the current two Divisions of the FAAA.
I take this opportunity to publicly inform our membership that in late 2003, I (Michael Mijatov) initiated confidential discussions between senior officials of the International Division and our senior counterparts in the Domestic/Regional Division of the FAAA.
Once I became the Secretary of the International Division in March 2004, the discussions had the formal imprimatur of this Division and it has been the policy of this Division to attempt to reverse the Divisionalisation of the FAAA that occurred in 2000.
It is self evident that an integrated FAAA structure would have benefits for all FAAA members both in industrial terms and in terms of a more effective, efficient and more financially secure FAAA.
However, I above all current elected officials in both Divisions of the FAAA witnessed the debilitating instability, arguments and resentment that ultimately caused the de-facto split of the FAAA in 2000.
Therefore, we in this Division of the FAAA, believe that it is both prudent and essential that certain matters have to be agreed to, before there can be a full “union” between the two FAAA Divisions. The most important of these are as follows:-
1) The FAAA must be structured in a way that the legitimate interests of members in each airline grouping are acknowledged in the Rules of the FAAA.
2) Industrial decisions made by each airline grouping must not be able to be thwarted, blocked or overridden by a coalition of officials from other airline groupings.
3) Election to and voting on, elective bodies in the FAAA must be on the basis of proportional representation (for example it would be unacceptable that almost 3000 Qantas Long Haul members have the same representation on a newly constituted FAAA as would another group of flight attendants with say 600 members).
Many of these issues are complex, but must be properly addressed, to ensure that if we do restructure the FAAA, we do it on a proper basis, to prevent the chaos of pre- 2000 recurring.
We have also indicated to the Domestic/Regional Division that if full re-integration is not possible we are keen to adopt a whole raft of other practical measures which would have the effect of closer industrial co-ordination. We also indicated that sharing of premises would also be possible as far as our Division is concerned, even if full integration is not practical or possible.
We will advise you of developments in due course.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
20 Ewan Street Mascot NSW 2020 Tel 61 2 8337 1111 Fax 61 2 8337 1122 Emergency Contact 0414 894 192

[Eden99]

Pegasus747 is correct...... issues such as termination of EBA's are fairly complex.

Clearly, roamingwolf did not go the any of the 21 FAAA meetings that were recently held.


If he had, he would have understood the issues that he now raises.

A suggestion to roamingwolf and any others who didnt take the time to go to the FAAA meetings...... rather than making wrong and uninformed comment on here..... ring the FAAA and get the correct information.

It is amusing that we have these bush lawyers on here who understand very little of the complexities of the new IR laws, yet cannot help themselves in making incorrect comments.

All the matters that roamingwolf raises were comprehensively dealt with at the FAAA meetings...... next time roamingwolf go to a meeting and you will be informed.

In the interim, a suggestion,, don't comment on matters you obviously know nothing about. You will simply confuse and mislead others in the same manner that you are confused.

[b77]

Hi All

I am so sorry probably someone has already asked these questions before but i cannot find the answers.

I applied for Qantas Cabin Crew position about 15 days ago, someone called me and i had an interview on the phone lasting aprox 15 min, the guy left me his phone number and asked me to call him on Monday and he will let me know if i have passed. Could someone tell me is this common practice or do you think that this is good or bad news.

If i passed the phone interview, i was told that i would have to go to some hotel near LHR for an assement, does anyone know what questions they tent to ask at the test ect.

Many thanks!!!!!

[b77]

Please post your comments about QANTAS here.
Hi All

I am so sorry probably someone has already asked these questions before but i cannot find the answers.

I applied for Qantas Cabin Crew position about 15 days ago, someone called me and i had an interview on the phone lasting aprox 15 min, the guy left me his phone number and asked me to call him on Monday and he will let me know if i have passed. Could someone tell me is this common practice or do you think that this is good or bad news.

If i passed the phone interview, i was told that i would have to go to some hotel near LHR for an assement, does anyone know what questions they tent to ask at the test ect.

Many thanks!!!!!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

[GalleyChick]

Hi All

I am so sorry probably someone has already asked these questions before but i cannot find the answers.

I applied for Qantas Cabin Crew position about 15 days ago, someone called me and i had an interview on the phone lasting aprox 15 min, the guy left me his phone number and asked me to call him on Monday and he will let me know if i have passed. Could someone tell me is this common practice or do you think that this is good or bad news.

If i passed the phone interview, i was told that i would have to go to some hotel near LHR for an assement, does anyone know what questions they tent to ask at the test ect.

Many thanks!!!!!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

b77 this is the Qantas Australia thread. You might want to post this question in the Qantas UK thread, i assume you are talking about the London phone interviews. You will find more information on there.

[Eden99]

FAAA NEWSLETTER

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

(Domestic/Regional Division)



8 December, 2006 NAT12-06



Attention all FAAA Domestic/Regional Division Members



FAAA DIVISIONAL SECRETARY RESIGNATION

I wish to inform all FAAA Domestic/Regional members that I will be resigning from my position as Divisional Secretary as of 30 January 2007.

The 30 January 2007 is also the date I will cease my employment with Qantas Airways Limited.

My career as a Flight Attendant began in February 1989 with Australian Airlines then Qantas. My involvement in your Association began in 1989 and I have held various elected positions on and off throughout that period.

I thank all Flight Attendants for the opportunity in representing you over this period. It has been a privilege and I have always tried to do my best for all members regardless of uniform. It has been a pleasure and a personal highlight to represent such passionate members in a job that at times is misunderstood by some airline management and the community at large. Service is a key part of our role however we will first and foremost be Safety Professionals.

Thanks to all past and present elected officials who have supported me and what I have stood for over my FAAA career. Thanks to the FAAA Staff who are the backbone of the FAAA and are passionately committed to protecting and improving Flight Attendant conditions. Most of all I wish to take this opportunity to thank all 4200 members from the 15 airlines we represent for their support and feedback throughout my FAAA involvement.

Finally, my advice to all members is to stay passionate about your career and industry. We have faced numerous challenges and the reason we have dealt with these challenges is because we stayed united when faced with adversity. More than ever you need to stay together to ensure we look after our unique issues and conditions of employment as Flight Attendants.

The decision on who will be my replacement and fill the Casual vacancy created by my resignation is a decision for your Divisional Executive/Council and information on the outcome of this process will be relayed to you in the coming weeks.

Once again I thank you and wish you all well for the many challenges ahead.



This newsletter was written and authorised by Darryl Watkins (Divisional Secretary).

[roamingwolf]

reckon that getting the “facts” from the faaa is a little like being a marriage counselor.You only ever get HALF the story and HALF the truth and even then it is their version of the truth

You also have to know the answers to be able to ask the questions.

Eden99, I was at one of the first meetings in Sydney and there was NOTHING said about any ability by the company (or anyone who owns it) to be able to apply to have a post reform eba dismantled with only 90 days notice.

Nothing was said about the current eba being any different because it was signed off pre reform laws.

We were told that the only way to go was to negotiate a new eba.

In fact MM told us that if we were not scared after the meeting he was not doing his job.

I keep getting the feeling that the faaa only tell us what they want to tell us and boy don’t you guys get upset when we question you.

I thought it was only the company that told us selective and filtered information .

WHY do you want us so badly to sign a new eba when this can be thrown out like some unwanted item by the company with only 90 days notice.What is worse is the faaa telling us that this is the way to get stability and a better future.Thats true but only until the company wants to enact the new IR laws and that will probably be just after the next election.

We should have been told this at the meetings and not on pprune .the question is WHY?

[Pegasus747]

ok lets get this str8.

An EBA signed prior to march 06 (pre reform) can be terminated by the employers making application to the AIRC upon expiry and the AIRC must terminate it.

AN EBA signed after march 06 (post reform) can be cancelled with 90 days notice upon expiry if the employer makes application to the AIRC, and the AIRC must terminate it.

NOW..... heres the difference UPON "EXPIRY" they can be terminated either by 90 days notice if post reform or without the specification of notice with a pre reform EBA.

For Long Haul Crew...lets take this slowly.....OUR EBA is enforecable until its expires. If a new EBA replaces it ..IT TOO will be enforecable until it TOO expires depending on the length up to a maximum of 5 years.


Now......the company can offer AWA's to long haul crew individually RIGHT NOW. but you cant be forced to sign them. For instance if the company wanted to employe new crew or promote CSM or CSS they could do it on AWA. They do not have to do it under the EBA.

We live in dangerous times. I too went to the 1st meeting and it was made clear several times that much of the new laws are untested. The legal advice recieved by the FAAA is priveleged information but anyone who wants to view the actual advice would be welcome to go to the FAAA office and read it.

That is anyone capable of understanding its complexity. fortunately, the FAAA has two Lawyers on its paid staff, and any explanation required could easily be answered by them. YOu always get the whole truth from the current FAAA officials to the best of their knowledge. The trouble is often people ask questions that almost require a chrystal ball to answer and those questions i would imagine are the hardest to answer and the most complex and time consuming.

Long Haul crew have easy access to the FAAA office its 10 mins walk from sign on. Many members have used the opportunity to ring ahead and make sure someone is available and have taken the time to have their questions answered in person....Roaming wolf...if you are unsure of some things because of their complexity you would not be Robinson Crusoe.

Some of the smartest industrial minds in the country are still coming to grips with the workchoices legislation. I am comfortable that our officials are being advised by th best legal and industrial people available.

At the end of the day nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. If you want 100% guarantees then you need to be in the funeral industry. Its the only one that is 100% guaranteed.

[roamingwolf]

Thanks for you post Pegasus747

So you are telling us here categorically that a pre reform eba is no different from a post reform eba and both can be terminated by the company unilaterally and we cannot do anything about it.

In your first post I got the idea that there has to be a test case if the eba in question was to be terminated and was ratified before the new IR laws were enacted.

[Pegasus747]

yes roaming wolf , thats precisely what i am saying. The pre reform legislation also allowed for EBA's to be terminated by the commission on application by the company.

I would suggest that this rarely happened because there were always EBA's to replace them.

Now the law provides for a range of options other than EBA's negotiated collectively. Throughout 2006 a number of EBA's were terminated.

The real danger for LH crew or any QF group employee is not having an ongoing EBA.

The FAAA is saying that if a new EBA can be negotiated that would be a very good thing. If the price of getting another EBA ( and the protection that flows from it) is "too high" , then the likely scenario would be to wait out the current EBA expiry.

That of course is not the preferred option. The Company has given no indication in writing or publicly that they will negotiate another EBA for Long Haul Crew.

The FAAA is saying at their meetings that another EBA is their preferred option and as soon as a new EBA can be negotiated that provides ongoing job security, growth for the long haul division, and a range of things discussed at the meetings then flight attendants will get a vote on it.

The COmpany has not approached the UNion asking for negotiations to commence early, nor have the FAAA approached the Company. What is being discussed at the meetings are a range of options open to LH crew.

Hope that clears things up a little

[jaded boiler]

Pegasus, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you because I believe that we both drink from the same well.

You seem a decent and well intentioned person who is trying to do the best by the people you represent.

But there is a significant difference between pre and post March 27 2006 EBAs.

It's not that simple to terminate a pre reform EBA. Most of the pre reform EBAs that have been terminated by the IRC this year (and they have been as rare as hen's teeth), have been done so due to the intransigence of the employer and at the request of employees and their representatives. To achieve this is a costly (read uneconomic), and time consuming exercise for both parties.

This won't affect me, as I'm enjoying my sunset years. However I am concerned that the well-being of a large group of people may be sacrificed simply to further enrich a tiny minority of individuals who are already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most of us.

[roamingwolf]

Honestly Pegasus I don’t understand what your point is.

The point of the difference between a pre and post eba is a legal one and it would be interesting to see a legal opinion in writing and not on pprune or on the phone from anyone at the faaa office.

I think it is time the faaa put out a newsletter showing the opinion on this matter from a high legal source and not the in office source..

But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days.

WHAT sort of protection is THAT.

Is this not a case of the devil we know especially if the number of pre existing eba’s being terminated is rare.

Why should we tempt fate when even you say the law is very complicated.

And I ask again why was this not talked about at the meetings.We should be given all the facts and not just the ones you want us to know about.And stop pretending that your not on the union.

[Guardian1]

I note the quality of comments on here does not get better.....
I'll try to restrain my impatience with some on here .... who i guess, are trying to "help" with their comments, however, to be blunt they are wrong comments and clearly indicate no understanding of issues, particularly matters such as termination of EBA's or even more importantly the deep danger that confronts L/H cabin crew in particular, from both the industrial laws, the fact that we are the most expensive cabin crew in Qantas and the imminent announcement that in fact Qantas will be taken over by the Macquarie Bank consortium.
OK ..I'll try ...probably in vain, to explain to roamingwolf. in particular ,about the rules surrounding termination of EBA's.
It's simple..... all EBA's whether pre or post reform.... can be terminated by an employer when they "nominally expire"... in the case of LH (17 DECEMBER 2007) OR AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES (31 DECEMBER 2007).
jaded boiler, you substantially do understand the process as does Pegasus 747. jaded boiler, without wanting to start an academic debate with you, termination is not a difficult process for an employer to overcome, with a pre reform EBA (WHEN IT EXPIRES).
Now back to roamingwolf, you say to pegasus 747, "But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days."
What pegasus is saying..... firstly is... that a pre-reform EBA LIKE THe L/H EBA, can be terminated, ONCE IT EXPIRES, upon application of the employer to the Commission and once some criteria are met...which are not difficul;t criteria to meet. The 90 days period is for the notice required to terminate a post reform EBA, again once the nominal expiry of an agreement is reached.
roamingwolf,it seems to me, from your posted comments that you thing a new EBA can simply be terminated AT ANY POINT by an employer with 90 days notice. This is not the case. The references to terminations are all in the context of when an existing EBA, WHETHER A PRE OR POST REFORM reaches its expiry date.
HOPE THAT HELPS EVERYONE. AGAIN. AS Eden99 and Pegasus747 have said, rather than completely getting tied up in knots and misunderstanding issues...people should contact the FAAA. I assure you, they completely understand these issues.
On the point of printing legal opinions etc in public..this is not a wise or sensible thing to do...it merely allows the Company to gain an insight into the strategic thinking of the FAAA.
roamingwolf, i realise you are actually thinking about these issues,,,so please don't take my comments, however blunt and harsh as they may seem, as a putdown of you :-)
Also, so there is no confusion, although pegasus747 has touched upon it, Qantas is not rushing to say to the FAAA that it indeed is even interested in talking about any EBA negotiations, whether early or at normal time.
This may give a clue to their thinking.... AWA's (individual contracts)?
Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one. It only became topical because cabin crew were telling MM that pilots were saying that a pre reform EBA could live on forever. This issue was then discussed at all subsequent meetings.
The Pilots union now knows that this is not the case.

[qcc2]

we, lh crew are NOT the most expensive cabin crew in QF. get off this line of communications and scare tactics. my mate pointed out and he went to the companies meetings according to THEM there is no difference between sh and lh. i agree on the industrial issues it is very complex and many have not been tested in court. so, lets move on and see what can be negotiated and what kind of compromise comes to the membership.
on another issue the proposed take-over bid by MAQ and its raiders would also massively affect our visitors and the rest of middle management.they should be equally concerned about the future.:*

[Guardian1]

qcc2, it is quite incredible that you can be so ignorant.

GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!

NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY.

Any assertions by qcc2 or anyone else that Qantas managers have stated that we are not more expensive than SH is a LIE. Anyone who maintains that is a liar too.

Qantas Long Haul crew are :

1)paid on average 20% more on their hourly rates , just to start with

2) Qantas LH crew are paid for 182.3 per 8 weeks.... SH are paid their lower rates of pay on the basis of 246 hours per 8 weeks

3) SH allowances in terms of overseas and domestic meal allowances are massively lower than L/H

4) SH EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF MAM CASUALS, AGAIN MASSIVELY CHEAPER THAN LONG HAUL CREW.

qcc2, it's people like you who are a real problem. You know nothing, you listen to so-called "friends" who relay you crap, that you then assert is gospel.

Currently, nearly all the discretionary pool of work that the Company controls in the Divisional Flying pool is being directed to SH.

That is because they(SH) are cheaper. Also, SH has not had the 3 rounds of redundancy that LH has had since 2001.

qcc2 you ought to refrain from making any comments on here, except about matters that you do know about.

Thank God, you don't have the industrial interests of 3000 LH crew in your hands. It would be like Alice in wonderland!

[Eden99]

Guardy, i can understand why you get irritated with comments:) like those of qcc2.

Also, if we were cheaper than SH, we would not be the ones being directed on Long Service Leave the last 2 years, as the work is transferred over to SH.

Obviously, its being transferred to SH because they are cheaper, while we are sent on months of directed LSL.

SH would not have grown by nearly a 1000 flight attendants the last 5 years, while we have dropped over a 1000 if they were not cheaper.

Guardian1, if you are a senior official of the FAAA and i realise you would not want to say if you are or you are not... please be aware that you guys have the vast bulk of LH crew supporting you. People realise there is a lot of talent in the leadership of the LH FAAA .

[twiggs]

I second that.

[stubby jumbo]

Can we move on now.

We all know by now , Guardian, Pegasus and Eden are all one of the same-FAAA officials. So as a block they have their view.

Others have a contrary view.

Bingo , we have a democratic process.

Lets not get too carried away though, As Guadian said , with the Texas Rangers about to boot their way into the Qantas Board, this debate could be totally meaningless.

Because as stated before it will be:

RIP, RORT AND ROUT.:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

[lowerlobe]

I second that

[roamingwolf]

Although I reckon your right stubby I also think it is important to talk about these things because if we don’t then we won’t be around much longer.

They reckon the meek inherit the earth but that’s rubbish and if we don’t stand up for ourselves we will get walked on.

we have jaded boiler telling us he reckons the faaa is wrong with the interpretation of our eba .As well we have the faaa trinity telling us that jaded boiler is wrong and we should go for a new eba.

Whats wrong with what the faaa has just said is that they have just told the company that we are willing to go onto the shorthaul award because they have just posted a letter telling us how much cheaper s/h are than us.

I reckon it might be time for the faaa to approach the Mac bank and see if they can do a deal there that might appeal to them

[lowerlobe]

I find it refreshing that someone else (for a change) is pointing out to the FAAA and it's supporter that there are other viewpoints and perhaps avenues to look at.

I do find it a little more than disconcerting that an elected official of our union would make the following public post regarding cabin crew when they are the people he is supposed to represent.

"NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY."

The best quote I like is this one from Guardian1:

"Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one"

Nice one Guardian1

[Eden99]

The truth hurts, doesn't it lowerlobe?
Other viewpoints and avenues are fine, as long as they are feasible and practical and actually based on even a small amount of knowledge.
The trouble with people like lowerlobe particularly, is that they have a demonstrated history of being anti FAAA ,perhaps because they are not even union members. Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
Are my comments arrogant? perhaps...... but they are spot on and correct.
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.
Those of you on here who think that you are more capable than the current officials and staff of the FAAA, should band together and try to get crew to elect you.
Unlike Rudd and Gillard you certainly would not be a "dream team" .
Nevertheless, it would provide a bit of entertainment and comedy to watch your silly ideas be put forward and watch the likes of Mijatov and Reed shred you.

[twiggs]

Other viewpoints and avenues are fine, as long as they are feasible and practical and actually based on even a small amount of knowledge.
......

Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
......
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.


Here here!

Exactly the reasons I will continue to dispute the incorrect statements made on here.
Unfortunately the only way the wild mob on here can respond when their deception is uncovered, is to try to discredit those who expose them by ridiculing with out of context quotes and then branding them as being management or FAAA reps.

[lowerlobe]

Oh Eden usual your posts are big on ridicule but extremely light on substance if not completely devoid of it at all.

You did not answer one of my points but then I don’t really expect you too as you wouldn’t know how.

Twiggs, well as usual you are just trying to score some points after your disastrous posts of late but as usual fall very short of even looking like it.

I note that not one of you has commented on the idea that roaming wolf made about approaching the Mac bank but then I suppose as usual S/H FAAA has probably already done so or is thinking about it and you will be outflanked AGAIN.

[Pegasus747]

oh Lowerlobe, like all nags in a race of thoroughbreds you are the last to finish.

The FAAA along with the Qantas Unions have been meeting with Macquarie Bank and the Institutional Share Holders of Qantas. Many Flight Attendants would have picked that up from the recent FAAA meetings but not you of course as you are probably not an FAAA member, as most who critisize the FAAA are not.

The Texas Group are not interested in Unions, they are only interested in making sizeable returns on their investments. On that basis i think that you Lowerlobe should sell yourself to them for what you are worth and then they could make a sizeable profit by selling you for what YOU think you are worth.


The Combined Qantas Unions, the ACTU and the FAAA LH/SH do not need your advice Lowerlobe. The source of their wisdom comes from a greater source than the last person you spoke to who usually is your greatest influence

[radiation junkie]

Don't know if this is old news, but I just heard a LH CSM is facing a Clause 11 for letting crew use an empty C zone as rest area (with Captain's OK) on a very light QF 8. Apparently he was dobbed in by a SH purser (CSM) returning on holidays sitting on the UD with his partner. Very sad if this is true ! What has this SH (so called) CSM achieved ?

[lowerlobe]

Pegasus and Eden and the rest of the Faaa and your supporter twiggs,

I was commenting on an idea expressed by someone else on pprune which I thought made sense in terms of being ahead of the game instead of playing catch-up as usual.

Now you tell us that you have been meeting with Macquarie bank!!!!

Why would you have been talking to the Mac Bank before the news of the takeover being announced and who was behind it. This again reeks of BS.

If you think the company is laughing at cabin crew think again as it is our representatives that are cracking them up.

Your other problem with you guys is that you accuse anyone who criticizes you of not being a financial member.Well your wrong again as usual and the meeting I was at said nothing about any discussions with the Macquarie bank and as roaming wolf said I as well cannot recall anything being said about pre reform EBA’s and post reform EBA’s , yet you claim you talked about them as well.

This is right up there with the “fatigue study” you had commissioned that none of us knew about but all of a sudden bring up and told us that we could have asked for at the union office and that we should have known about.

Are we again supposed to be psychic and know what you guys are up to?

The next BS you’ll tell us is that you were privy to the takeover news months ago and have been in secret discussions with the group throughout all of this.

You are in fantasy land and the company is holding all the cards in the deck and you are bluffing as usual.To think you are representing us is about as scary as you can get.

[DEFCON4]

The FAAA and its council are doing the best they can under the circumstances.
We elected these people and personally I dont need to know the finer details of what they are doing..."need to know nice to know."
I have flown with most of them and given them a grilling on a range of subjects and the answers have been more than credible.
I dont give my trust to anyone easily but these guys seem to have an excellent grasp of what is going and what their viable options are.
They need our support not mindless pointless criticism from pseudo intellectual armchair champions.

[roamingwolf]

Whoa there ,I reckon it’s time to take one step back and take a deep breath.We all know that we have different ideas and one of mine was to approach the group that look as though they are going to take over QF.

It shouldn’t matter to the faaa if someone comes up with an idea but the danger is not talking about them.Let’s not let egos get in the way of what we should be doing.

To say that the faaa or anyone is above listening to ideas is crazy and to call someone who has them as an armchair champion is just as nuts.

[Guardian1]

lowerlobe..you truly have an over-inflated idea of your capacities.

I have said it earlier and it just does not sink in with you.... if you have questions..ring the FAAA.

This anonymous forum is not the place that any senior official of the FAAA would discuss confidential matters with you or for that matter anyone else.

The issue of post and pre reform EBA's was discussed extensively at the FAAA meetings....... as i said...because crew were saying at the meetings that the Pilots association (AIPA) were indicating that pre - reform EBA's could live on indefinitely.

The issue was not of significance because the FAAA officials and its staff knew this was not the case.

The fact that some on here raise the issue is not here or there... some on here were incorrect too...including lowerlobe and roamingwolf.

Also as Pegasus747 indicated earlier at many of the FAAA meetings the meeting with Maquarie bank was also relayed to the members.

Finally, lowerlobe.... once and for all.... get this through your head... the FAAA has considered every idea you may have thought of...also the Macquarie Bank meeting occurred 3 months ago.

These issues are confidential and the only reason Pegasus747 may have mentioned it is because the FAAA leadership, particularly MM broached the subject publicly at the meetings.

lowerlobe leave the experts in the FAAA to conduct industrial policy..you just stick to your cart exchanges mate. You truly are an annoying individual.

DEFCON4's words"pseudo intellectual armchair champions".... sum up accurately the likes of lowerlobe.

[speedbirdhouse]

Radiation Junkie,

it sounds hard to believe that a fellow flight attendant could be so mindlessly spitefull but then again I have seen the actions of twisted and officious pursers first hand, so you never know........

It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the gestapo's clause 11 especially if the CSM involved was "directed" by the Captain.

I was told by ex CCM DH [before he saw the light] that there wasn't much cabin crew "management" :rolleyes: could do about a situation like this given that the Captain is ultimately in charge and doesn't answer to the thugs we do.

Keep us informed if you hear any more.

--------------------

Those people who still read QF propaganda might remember a certain CSM with the initials GP being awarded on the front page of Qantas news the "order of darth" in person by our "Dear Leader" and Dame for his charitable work in Zimbabwe.

This hardworking, caring "role model" CSM has recently faced the ignominy of not meeting his KPI's and being awarded a "2" for not being up to scratch with the meaningless, dehumanizing, computer generated paperwork that now dominates the longhaul CSM's working day.

A collegue who took the time to talk to AW has been told that management now think [based on feedback from other CSMs] that the basis used to measure our onboard performance might be a little flawed..............:ugh:

Bring back "Winny", walls that you can't see through and sack the lot of fishbowl inhabiting fools on QCC2.

PLEASE...........and don't forget to fill in a dot.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Butterfield8]

If the details of the event are true its not surprising.
The general attitude of the domestics is that of power mad,self righteous petty public servants.

[ozskipper]

Unfortunately, the story is true. It was a LH MEL CSM who got dobbed in.

The particular CSM who was dobbed in is a really lovely & competent manager and a all round nice person.

Shame really.

[lowerlobe]

If this dob is a recent one then it is no wonder that our 2 unions do not join together.

This is then the 3rd time a s/h crew has dobbed in a l/h crew that I am aware of .

What do these people think they will achieve with this sort of activity .It's just like being back at school again .You would think that some people grow up but obviously this is not the case with these people.

[sydney s/h]

Thanks for generalising Butterfield8, lowerlobe and anyone else who wants to get on the SH ****-slinging boat.

[Butterfield8]

Time after time after time some domestic person dobs a longhaul person for doing something that is really none of their business.
To their credit(?)they also dob on each other.
What is it with you people?
Do you think this behaviour endears you to anyone?
Do you think this behaviour offers you a fastrack to being the next CEO?
It is the behaviour of nasty vindictive small minded pratts with an overblown sense of self importance.
You wonder why LHCC are critical of you.?
Spread the word..."mind your own bloody business"

[sydney s/h]

"What is it with you people?"

Wow...Butterfield8 , do you always paint everyone with the same brush??

I was on a LH flight earlier this year in J/C and the crew were very lazy and disinterested.
Does that mean that ALL LH crew are lazy and disinterested?? NO.

Grow up. :mad:

[lowerlobe]

Sydney s/h I think you are missing our point .We are not generalizing as this has been happening since we bought Australian airlines.

We all know there are people who are lazy and they are in every group whether that is S/H ,L/H , management, police etc…but why would you dob as it achieves nothing. If it really was the case as a CSM you should have brought it to the attention of the operating L/H CSM.

Our point is that crew in S/H are dobbing in L/H for various things that are to be honest infantile .If L/H were to dob S/H for some petty reason as well I would be critical of them. With the S/H FAAA undercutting us and the dobbing it would appear that some S/H crew are out to do anything to hurt L/H crew

This not another attack on S/H per se but a need for explanation.

Why do some crew in S/H find it necessary to dob L/H crew?...Please tell us!

[sydney s/h]

lowerlobe,

I have no idea why some people feel the need to dob on others.

I certainly cant speak for the 1000's of fellow workers.

As far as me speaking to the LH CSM when the crew were crap on my flight, i can only imagine how that would have gone down coming from a "domestic purser".

I'm over this conversation. Time to move on......

[flitegirl]

Just saw on the news, Macquarie Bank take over bid could be "made official" by tomorrow:ouch:

[B A Lert]

Why do some crew in S/H find it necessary to dob L/H crew?.

Because if they see something clearly not in accordance with company policy, and it bothers them, they sometimes need to speak to someone. It's something to do with standards and company policy. Clearly, what is alleged to have happened was contrary to good commercial practice that neither the CSM nor captain appeared to understand. What would a commercial first or bus class punter think when they saw operating Cabin Crew using seats for rest - even though the seats may have been commercially unavailed? After all, there is perfectly good horizontal crew rest available for crew use. Why shouldn't it have been used? Also, neither command nor commercial discretion allows the willy-nilly use of premium cabin seats. All too often one sees and hears of those with connections of crew being upgraded once the aircraft doors have been closed. I have seen it myself. (No, I won't name names or identify time and place but it does happen.) Lastly, would the CSM in question have listened to the S/H CSM as he was a passenger? I suspect that the answer would be negative.

[DEFCON4]

Mr. Lert appears to have a God Given right to comment with authority on any and all matters.
A self appointed keeper of the moral high ground.
Mr. Lert have you never utilized an employers underutilized facilities?
Have you never taken a pen,a sheet of paper?
Seats are fixed capital... you cannot take them.
I was socialized to mind my own business regarding matters outside my immediate concern.
Unless I am threatened or some social injustice has been perpetrated against me or a member of my family or a friend I remain quiet.
In todays society there are far too many people who concern themselves with other peoples affairs when they have no legal or moral right to do so.
It is small minded and petty.
If an individual is concerned about some matter it is courtesy to make others aware of their intentions so that the situation may be remedied.
To make a complaint without providing this opportunity is both immoral and unjust.
What sought of satisfaction did this domestic person derive from dobbing in a colleague?
What a sad sorry little individual he/she must be

[lowerlobe]

Well,it’s comedy central again and this time it’s not from the stables in Ewan St Mascot where our geldings are housed.

BALert, You have always struck me as the sort that is a by the book type of guy .

Have you ever thought of the possibility of using the seat if a crew member is sick and unable to use the horizontal crew rest or on an aircraft that does not have horizontal crew rest.

I have used one of these seats in J/C years ago when I was required to stay with a pax that was handcuffed and put in the aft section of J/C so as not to upset or be able to physically challenge other pax..

I have seen on two occasions a crew member put into either a J/C or P/C seat when they had received news of a death in the family and were obviously distressed.

These situations are obviously unknown to you or would not be considered by you because of your dislike of crew.I imagine you are the sort that would make them work home regardless of the situation.


It is different if you are an office dweller but in our business you can't send someone home in a taxi from Singapore ,London or Los angeles.If there is a spare seat in J/C or P/C you can utilize those seats if you have compassion but there's the difference.You would dob them in because it is not procedure and every thing is black and white

[radiation junkie]

Interesting to see the points of view in this "incident". The problem is this sort of behaviour, dobbing on fellow work colleagues, is indicative of a new breed of employee Qantas, which has been nurtured by the current management as a tool of advancement. Advancement to what; to a level where ultimately you are redundant and "goodbye"....
We all know the procedures regarding use of JC as crew rest. But on a 14 hour daylight sector with a light pax load, it is a great relief to be able to sit down and quietly watch a movie or rest.
B A lert has told us: After all, there is perfectly good horizontal crew rest available for crew use. Why shouldn't it have been used?
B A lert, you have probably never even seen or used this crew rest, so have no idea what it's like during a long day sector when crew are wide awake and need a rest, but not sleep.
Qantas has even sent directives to Qantas airport managers in LA to ensure C zone seats have pax allocated to them even when loads are light. Their answer to this was to ensure C zone is always kept free of pax when possible. Why, because they care about crew and wellfare of colleagues. Very simple philosophy.

[mrpaxing]

B A Lert it IS Company policy ( and as in many cases they are guidelines) that the captain has the discretion to make decisions like the one on Qf 8. Lets not forget he also has the legal right under the CARS (civil aviation safety regulations) to make any decision onboard. get of the moral high ground.:ugh: i have and still travel a lot on staff travel domesticially. if i would report any breach of company policy onboard domestic flights , i would be writing a lot of reports. unfortunatly some of our collegues, some s/h and some l/h need a new lease of life. i wish someone would publish the name/s via privat mail:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Pegasus747]

Any CSM of either division who allowed to use passenger seats without a legitimate reason is taking a huge risk in the current environment.

Upgrading non commercial passengers is also a risky business. We have all done it in the past but the greatest risk these days is a don from a colleague.

Its really nice thing for a CSM to do for a crew or a crew members family. But the CSM is putting their rank and potentially job at risk.

There was a time when Line Managers would have perhaps given you a rap over the knuckles and a kick in the tail, more for getting caught than for the act itself. But those days and that style of management is over.

It's a new world and CSM's sadly have to get with the program... or "risk" the consequences.......sad but reality

[roamingwolf]

The company seems to be trying harder and harder with each month that goes by to take away any enjoyment that we have in our work.I reckon they go out of their way to make sure this happens but if we look at what they do including Mr/Ms Lert we find some interesting contradictions.

Has anyone and i also mean Ms BaLert not
Taken a pen home
Taken a pad home
taken anything from the office like paper clips,rubber bands or any stationary.
photocopied anything for personal use.
And has anyone who works in any qantas building made a personal call from a company office phone.
These are only a small number of things that they TAKE for granted BUT if we do anything they are quick to jump up and down and lecture us before dishing out a clause 11.
Has anyone else noticed how many things like cheese trays are seen in the offices.
Plus how many ground staff go in work time to staff travel or walk outside for a smoke break.
they can turn up a few minutes late for work or leave a few minutes early but if we do the office has moved.

I reckon this basically is about some crew in s/h trying to pay us back for buying them out and of office dwellers jealous of our jobs.

[stubby jumbo]

Agree with you Speedbirdhouse

[stubby jumbo]

Speedbirdhouse...
"I was told by ex CCM DH [before he saw the light] that there wasn't much cabin crew "management" :rolleyes: could do about a situation like this given that the Captain is ultimately in charge and doesn't answer to the thugs we do."

Couldn't agree more Speedbirdhouse.

2 weeks ago I was ambushed at the sign on desk by "one of them" and interogated about a pax complaint.
The conversation went around and around. The questioning infantile and pathetic bordering at times being laughable. Anyway , at the end of it all another " one of them" came over and said that "they" have the incorrect sector....."it was the right flight number QF10, BUT someone forgot the fact that the LHR based crew operate this sector on this day of the week !!!!"

Oh pleeeeeze.

They virtually had the CSM hung , drawn and quartered and as it turned out............the wrong sector.

How often does this happen and someone forgets to "connect the dots".?

You mentioned ex CCM DH. It was because he used to fly , that he UNDERSTOOD what was clearly going on, unlike these clowns we have at the moment.

"PRICE CHECK.... ON BIG RED TOMATO SAUCE COME TO REGISTER #4".......ring any bells for the current management team:bored:[/quote]

[lowerlobe]

Let’s not forget another commonly illegal and improper use of company resources by using a company computer terminal to access the internet during work hours.

BALert as you are a person of integrity and believe in adhering to company standards and procedures I expect you to ring downstairs to security and stand yourself down pending an official investigation for misuse of company time and equipment.You will be issued with a clause 11 and docked wages for time not spent on company work.I also expect you to forego staff travel for 12 months and give back all your company issued shares.


Stubby jumbo,

I hope you demanded and recieved an apology from the keystone cops

[peanut pusher]

My 2 cents worth.

The seat is empty and cannot be removed from the a/c so I will upgrade all crew and have since I got the gold / now red tie.

This little bit of humanity builds loyality at a time when it's being drained like sump oil.

We now have one of the most expensive staff travel programs in the world.

Recently did LHR/SYD/LHR on a competitor saving over $390.

Never had a problem with crew but once was asked by AP manager to upgrade 2 J class commercial pax's teenage kids.

Did so but had to pull them into line within an hour after take off, told the AP manager and her reply was she new them from school swimming.

Funny I thought they were high value customers when you brought them to the door!!!!


PP:D

[sydney s/h]

roamingwolf...you said "I reckon this basically is about some crew in s/h trying to pay us back for buying them out".

Are you kidding? Hate to burst your bubble mate but no one in SH actually talks about LH. Believe it or not we dont care about what is going on over there. And we certainly dont talk about the Qantas/Australian merger way back in the early '90's.

Apart from myself and maybe a couple of others, no one in SH is even aware of Pprune. Its just a whinging forum for a select group of QF LH crew. The comments of a select dozen of you hardly represents the thousands of LH crew.

You have no idea sunshine.

[roamingwolf]

Mate if you don't want us in l/h generalising then read my post again.

I said "SOME crew in s/h and office people who are jealous"
By that I thought it was obvious that it is only some that are still upset at the buyout.
And as far as bursting my bubble from the l/h crew who transfered to s/h tell me it can be hell from some of the old boilers especially if they even mention l/h in passing.
Have a cup of tea mate and a lie down and cool off sunshine

[Lurker@L5]

Playwright David Williamson obviously is very familiar with the nature , style and tactics of Qantas Management.
In an article in the Oz last week entitled "Writer laments greedy managers' triumph" he said -'chief executives on 300 times the average wage are destroying their businesses and the lives of their staff. Once you're at the top, the last thing on your mind is the long -term survival of your firm and the care of its employees. the thing to do is slash and burn and get the share price up temporarily by cost-cutting measures made at considerable human cost, then getting the resulting bonuses you've built into your already huge package, before the firm you've gutted falls to pieces. By that time you'll have a golden handshake and be off to another corporate trough."
Williamson goes on to attack what he calls -'managerialism' ''the art of manipulating, cajoling, terrifying, and brainwashing employees to give their all for the company. this is done by the ubiquitous human resources departments which grow into huge mini empires within a firm, devoted to screwing the last ounce of productivity out of their employees."
He bags all the tests we have to do to prove we are "team players".
"Psychopaths are very good at appearing to be pleasant and witty team players. this probably explains why so many top level executives test high on sociopathic behaviour."
I reckon David has defined Qantas circa 2006 perfectly.
If you have him onboard - buy that playwright a beer!

[qcc2]

managements grab for more money this morning as the maquarie & assoc. bid is expected.:ugh: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Shlonghaul]

Well said David Williamson :D and thanks for posting the message Lurker. His remarks are spot on and I just wish more could see through the filth of corporate greed and the psychopaths involved in it. Maybe he could re-write his play on The Club and this time base it on these corporate nazis.

[lowerlobe]

Ok Let's have a game here to see what price you think the consortium will offer for a takeover..
I think it will be $5.60....anyone else care to have a guess.

[radiation junkie]

WE'VE BEEN TO CITIES WHERE LABOUR IS CHEAP
AND AUSTRALIAN JOBS YOUR QANTAS CANT KEEP
BUT WE REALISE MARKETING NEEDS US TO DRONE
THAT WE STILL CALL AUSTRALIA HOME

AUSTRALIANS KEEP TRAVELLING, THEY'RE HARD TO BEAT
BUT WE WANT THEM TO PUT ALL THEIR BUMS ON OUR SEATS
WHILE WE MAKE THEM REDUNDANT WE'LL CONTINUE TO BLEAT
THAT WE STILL CALL AUSTRALIA HOME

WE'VE DONE IT TO CABIN CREW THEY WERE THE FIRST
AND THE MAINTENANCE GUYS - WELL THEY WERE THE WORST
NOW THE GEEKS IN I T ARE ALL COPPING A BURST
IF THEY CALL AUSTRALIA HOME

(the soppy bit...)

ALL THOSE SONS AND DAUGHTERS FIRED FROM THEIR JOBS
ONTO THE DOLE QUEUES WE'VE HURLED
WE'VE TAUGHT THEM A LESSON, (IT'LL DO THEM GOOD)
THAT THEY'RE SCREWED IN THE GLOBAL WORLD

AND SOMEDAY WE'LL ALL BE TOGETHER ONCE MORE
WHEN THE QANTAS HEAD OFFICE IS IN BANGALORE
AND YOU'LL REALISE FINALLY WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN LYING
WHEN WE'LL STILL CALL AUSTRALIA...HOME

[Syd eng]

Offer was $5.50 and has been rejected.

[radiation junkie]

I think it will get close to $5.80 before they give up. The $5.50 figure was suggested before Qantas Group profit forcasts were inflated by 30%.

[lowerlobe]

I think your right ,they would never give their highest offer straight away.It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in a few board rooms at the moment.

[NIGELINOZ]

A stockbroker client of my business reckons Qantas management will play hardball and he says they are mad to accept anything less than $5.90 per share.
My own guess is in the range of $5.78-$5.85.whatever the price someone is sure to get shafted,probably employees,it wouldn't be GD or MJ would it!

[qcc2]

somewhat complex conditions attached to the bid, including a breakfee which most likely is huge.:ugh: As the late renee rivkin used to say never move on the first bid. more to come. A$ 6.00 my guess, but what about the conditions?:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[roamingwolf]

Whatever happens with the takeover offer always remember what's important and that it is the destinations and it aint the money.

[DEFCON4]

MacBank doesnt done all this hard work to give up at the first knock back.
This play has not yet reached its tragic conclusion.:{

[sydney s/h]

DEFCOM,

no truer words spoken. My sister deals in exactly that business of taking companys over for a huge investment group. From what she says this is very normal - would you offer your first offer as your best when you buy a car?

Macq is after us. Bugger.

[GPS72]

Hi all
It now seems the deal will be a foregone conclusion, probably around the $ 5.50 per share. My question is: If there is a higher degree of volatility, and as the experts have been saying, the very real possibility of Qantas potentially going bust if there are any more disasters in the airline industry, then how safe is our Superannuation?
I fear there will be massive restructuring and the effort of 35,000 employees over all these years will be dismissed.
Sad days indeed.
:{ :{ :{

[sydney s/h]

News just through - Qantas sold for $5.60/share.

Sad day.

[priapism]

They have bought a lemon-and paid too much for it . Good luck to you all.
You are facing uncertain and difficult tmes so don't turn on each other and stay united .

[ShesGreatintheGalley]

Qantas sold for $11bn
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer and Michael West
December 14, 2006


CORPORATE raiders last night struck a deal worth $11 billion to take over Qantas, after sweetening an offer that was rejected by the airline's board earlier in the day.

Airline Partners Australia increased its offer by 10c a share to swing the Qantas board in favour of the deal.

A source close to the deal said insiders - after weeks of tense negotations - were confident an agreement would be signed today.

Qantas's non-executive directors earlier said a $5.50 per share cash bid by the consortium was not acceptable, citing the complex terms of the offer. It is understood they were also not happy with the bid price or a $100 million break fee if the deal failed to go through.

Most of the conditions have been changed to placate Qantas directors.

Executive directors Geoff Dixon and Peter Gregg, who did not vote on the offer because it reportedly involves a 1 per cent stake for senior managers, later backed the rejection in a note to staff. "The Qantas decision has the support of all directors - including the non-executive directors, Peter Gregg and myself - and the senior executive team at Qantas," Mr Dixon said.

A source close to the talks said the airline had told the bidders to "get real", prompting the revised offer late last night.

The source said the board

believed the original offer was not in the best interests of shareholders or the company. But Qantas was not "doing a Coles-Myer" and sending its suitors away, and negotiations were not hostile.

A source involved with the bidders indicated there were no unusual conditions in the bid.

News of the rejection of the original offer caused Qantas shares to plummet below $5 when they began trading after a brief suspension, but they recovered to close down 14c at $5.09.

The carrier's main rival, Virgin Blue, added to the pain by announcing it would push ahead with plans to launch an international airline on the flying kangaroo's lucrative Pacific route.

The original takeover proposal would have seen Qantas 60 per cent Australian-owned, giving David Coe's Allco Finance Group 11 per cent of the airline, Allco Equity Group about 34 per cent and Macquarie Bank less than 15 per cent. Offshore investors, including Texas Pacific Group and Onex, would hold less than 40 per cent of the airline, with no single investor holding more than 15 per cent.

It is understood the move to increase the bid to $5.60 per share was linked to bringing in other parties to reduce the exposure of the Allco group. Allco Equity, headed by Peter Yates, is related to Allco Finance and the group was looking at a combined stake of up to 46 per cent.

Allco leases aircraft to Qantas and has two former airline chiefs, Rod Eddington and David Turnbull, on its board.

While it is understood Sir Rod has no interest in joining the Qantas board or being involved in its operations, Mr Turnbull is tipped to join Mr Coe and possibly former Telstra chairman Bob Mansfield on the board.

Analysts viewed the board rejection of the original offer as part of negotiating tactics.

"I think rather than being a landmark moment in the negotiation, they have done it to

respond to the speculation," JP Morgan analyst Matt Crowe said last night in anticipation of a revised offer.

"I don't think we interpret it as being the end of anything, but it shows they're still a fair way apart."

The deal would see the foreign component of the deal nine percentage points below the foreign investment limit and about 5 per cent less than the stakes held by foreign investors on November 8. The structure is designed to avoid reviews by the Foreign Investment Review Board and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, though the federal Government has said it will still look at national interest issues.

Experts have warned a highly leveraged Qantas is more vulnerable to downturns from external shocks such as terrorist attacks and the major credit agencies say a takeover will reduce the airline's credit rating.

Moody's Investors Service said yesterday this could involve a "multi-notch" downgrade.

However, analysts said that popular suggestions the consortium could cut and run in a downturn were overblown.

There are also fears the new owners would be quicker to axe unprofitable regional routes kept open by Qantas for political reasons. And unions are worried sections of the company would be sold off and more work such as maintenance and call centres would be sent offshore.

Analysts say there are about $3 billion worth of assets open to review

[love2flyoneworld]

Colin Kruger
December 14, 2006 - 12:41PM


Qantas chief Geoff Dixon says he will accept the consortium's offer to continue as the airline's CEO, but it will not necessarily be for the mountain of money they plan to throw at him.
Mr Dixon will be one of the airline senior executives who stand to receive 1 per cent of the airline if the deal goes through.
Depending on whether the airline meets its performance hurdles this could deliver Mr Dixon up to $60 million as part of the Long-Term Incentive Scheme (LTIP), but all proceeds will go to charity he says.
"My family and I have decided that I will gift my entire share of the LTIP to a charitable trust, which we will establish for the benefit of the community, particularly in the areas of medical research and indigenous health and education," Mr Dixon said.
He was not so charitable today when asked about the outlook for the airline's workforce. When asked if he could guarantee that the new owners would not undertake job cuts in the future, Mr Dixon replied: "No, we are not going to say here now that there won't be labour changes
"There are always going to be labour changes in the aviation industry."
Asked if Qantas would agree to a union labour guarantee agreement, Mr Dixon replied: "No." :confused: :confused: :=

[ShesGreatintheGalley]

while i agree that this whole thing is quite scary.. i dont believe that there is any way that ANY company like an airline can with all honesty say that 'there will be no job cuts in the future'.
whether or not he is referring to impending job cuts that are a result from this takeover, or just in general.. he couldnt promise something like that.. no one would believe him anyway because it would be impossible to uphold.

what are the unions doing about this does anyone know?
personally i am more scared about losing staff travel and other benefits etc - if we are on EBAs then we are safe for the meantime surely?
I think if anything major happened it would be to casual/hire staff first and reduced conditions/benefits and pay for new recruits

[qcc2]

it will take time to implement the changes from an asx listing to a private firm. this may take several month. there will another massive review about future cost cutting..
the fin review today qouted a qantas director:
"on a personal note i dont want this deal to happen. but my emotinal views about what qantas represents to the nation are not at issue. the social and emotional factors are secondary to the economic".
those bas$%^&s would sell their mothers & children for money:yuk:

has anyone seen or heard a comment on the qantas deal from the so called dream team?

[Pegasus747]

QANTAS UNIONS FEAR PRIVATE EQUITY TAKEOVER WILL PUT THOUSANDS OF JOBS AND
PAY AT RISK

Unions fear the takeover of Qantas by a private equity consortium will cost
thousands of jobs and put downward pressure on workers' wages and conditions
while bonuses for senior executives will go through the roof.

Qantas employs around 37,000 staff with more than 90% union members.

ACTU Secretary Greg Combet and Qantas unions issued the following statement
on the takeover bid announced today:

"This takeover could spell a significant reduction in workers' pay and
conditions and the loss of thousands of Australian jobs.

In recent years Qantas staff have borne the burden of the company's drive
for a stronger competitive position and the workers have a right to be very
disappointed that their jobs and wages and conditions are now at further
risk.

Qantas workers have experienced an average pay cut in real terms of more
than 3% in recent years, and yet company profits have soared and salaries
for senior management have risen by more than 40%.

Senior Qantas executives are also set to share in a $110 million incentive
scheme should the private equity bid succeed.

Private equity funds are interested in short term benefits and unions are
very worried that this is likely to be achieved via the outsourcing of jobs
overseas, the sell-off of business units and the slashing of services,
including regional airline routes.


A large component of the finance being used to purchase Qantas is borrowed
money and the company's debt levels could double if the takeover is
successful.

Again, workers have a right to feel cheated after years of Qantas demanding
wage restraint from its workforce in order to reduce debt and to allow the
purchase of new planes.

Unions are also troubled by the fact that the Howard Government's new IR
laws have made the take over of Qantas a more attractive proposition because
they allow major cuts to workers' wages and conditions in a number of ways.
Qantas has already started the process of cutting workers' pay through the
introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements.

In the likely event the company is restructured, it is also possible under
the IR laws for workers to lose all their terms and conditions including
entitlements to public holidays, leave loadings, penalties, allowances and
redundancy pay - receiving only $13.47 per hour and four other minimum
conditions.

Despite our strong opposition to the sale, unions have a long-standing
relationship with Qantas management that we will work hard to maintain in
order to protect the interests of employees," said Mr Combet.

[Shlonghaul]

Have you seen the documentary movie Enron - The Smartest Guys In The Room? A true story of corporate greed gone wrong. It's compelling viewing and currently running on Foxtel and in the current economic climate I suggest you watch it.............and then brace yourselves!!

[stubby jumbo]

'Just saw Darth being interviewed in the 730 Report.

I have never seen him look so happy and smug.

As a group we are stuffed........'wish I took the package:(

My bet is that from March it will be "not a noice place"
Roll on Qantas A-380 Ltd. :{


The timing of MM latest rant on the FAAA website has not gone unnoticed.

As a member , I would of preferred a more measured response to THE biggest issue affecting all members. Not some paranoid diatribe about those pesky non-members ( get over it boyz-you're never going to get 100% membership......MOVE ON........THIS ISSUE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS DRIBBLE!!!!!

Wonder how the party is going with Darth and the Dame tonight.

They must be stoked:yuk:

Please can we have just one more VR package !!!:sad:

[Front Pit]

As a group we are stuffed........'wish I took the package:(
Please can we have just one more VR package !!!:sad:
I know what you mean stubby and the jigsaw puzzle of this past year has now fallen into place. The enforced long service leave, clause 11s, bullying tactics, VR package etc now shows what management has been up to.

Schlong, I've seen the Enron movie and yes it was scary stuff with greedy execs cut loose at a Roman orgy of money and power but at least some of them are now in jail sharing a cell with a big dude named Bubba.

I need a laugh now so will have to dig out the Laughter In The Air book by Col Burgess to remind myself of the good ol' days!!

[lowerlobe]

Does anyone else get the feeling that this was a little too easy and contrived?

As front pit has said the last piece has just fallen into place with pieces of the jigsaw like directed LSL.The FAAA was right in a way about the cost structure of L/H but I think the real reason has just been exposed and that was to remove or lower the debt to it's employees and hence to the new owners.They had to make it as attractive as possible so that if the new owners run by the same Darth want to get rid of crew they don't have to pay as much to do so.

As far as MM's rant goes with the FAAA's website having a password ,does he really think that will stop the company getting a hold of any electronic newsletter?

We are just very lucky that MM has been having secret talks with the Macqaurie bank now for the last 3 months.Obviously these talks have been fruitfull because he told us about them on pprune.I am waiting with anticipation to hear the details as obviously Darth was not aware of them either.

Twiggs,here is your perfect opportunity to give up the parts of our EBA that you have said are over generous such as our allowances.I'm sure the new owners will want you on a work place agreement as soon as possible.GO FOR IT

[stubby jumbo]

Now lets not get too far ahead of ourselves.

Our newly crowned philanthropist Mr Geoff Dixon has said:

"I cannot gaurantee job security, I cannot gaurantee my own job security:" ( 730 Report 14th Dec )

Now, I feel confident of the future.

Merry Christmas to you too:{ :{

[Pegasus747]

The new Industrial Relations laws make the take over of Qantas an attractive proposition. It is now possible following a transmission of business for Qantas workers after 12 months to lose all their terms and conditions, including their redundancy entitlements and be covered only by the minimum rate of pay $13.47 per hour and 4 other basic minimum conditions.

The new IR laws also make it possible for the business to force employees to accept an employer Greenfield agreement. In most cases these so-called agreements remove all entitlements to public holidays, leave loadings, penalties, allowances, redundancy pay and often have a flat, usually low, hourly rate of pay.

Qantas has started the process through the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements. The continued outsourcing of jobs overseas will gather pace should the private equity raiders succeed.

Even under the new IR laws, Qantas workers still have rights, that is why it is important that all the Qantas unions have agreed to work together to protect the Qantas workers Rights at Work.

Qantas management has more than $110 million reasons why they shouldn’t care. The private equity consortium has offered 180 senior Qantas management $110 million should the bid be accepted by Qantas management and the bid ultimately succeed. This is on average $611,000.00 payment per manager.

A large component of the finance being used to purchase

Qantas is borrowed money. There is lots of borrowed money.

Qantas’ debt levels are expected to double if the takeover is successful. Qantas workers have a right to feel cheated after years of Qantas demanding wage restraint from its workforce to reduce debt and to allow the purchase of new planes.

It is likely that Qantas’ credit rating will be downgraded if the buy-out succeeds. In the past Qantas has demanded job cuts and wage restraint, in part to protect Qantas’ credit rating. When millions of dollars are dangled in front of Qantas management, high debt is suddenly not a concern???

[lowerlobe]

If you look at the bigger picture you only have to ask yourself a few questions.

Who is the winner if the takeover is allowed?

Who will stand to lose with any takeover?

I think the answer to the first question is self apparent and the answer to the second question is the staff and the Australian public.

Now is the time to phone your local Federal politician and say that if they are a coalition member you will vote against them at the next election if they go along with the takeover.Hit them where it hurts and that is their re-election prospects,it is the only thing politicians care about.

If your Federal rep is an opposition member then tell him/her that you are a life long Liberal voter but will vote for Labour if they kick up enough of a stink about the election.

If Costello thinks there is enough mileage in this issue he might block it especially if he thinks it might win him some support in ousting Howard.

Qantas is an Australian icon ,whats next? Will Iemma sell the Harbour bridge to raise money for some other policy.Just look at how much a coffee costs in the terminal and you understand why everyone is fearful of an airline run by the same people who own the terminal.

In Darths interview last night he has been asked to stay on …so much for his statement that he could not guarantee his own job security.The part I really liked was the hug and kiss between MJ and Darth,she was so happy she was almost crying ,they have finally got what they wanted.In fact MJ said that the share holders should be happy because they are getting a good price on their shares.

[roamingwolf]

Twiggs ,

The reason I edited the part about a 46 hour slip is that I did not want the moderator to delete the post as I imagine you must ask him to do that a lot.

However since you are obviously from another planet can you explain how you can only have one sunset or nightime in 46 hours unless you are slipping at either the north or south poles or very close to them?

By the way don't pm me I'm not interested

[priapism]

Costello is the man who you need to lobby as he is the one who will have the ultimate say on the conditions of the sale. He is no friend of Q.F's either .

I remember reading how he missed the big meeting in Canberra regarding Ansett's demise ( due to fog )and how he was "incandescent with rage" after Howard took the advice of one Max Moore-Wilton , who happened to be great buddy of Dixon's , that effectively sunk Ansett.

Just because Q.F is an Aussie icon don't think it is immune from cost cutting by new overseas owners. Just ask anyone who worked for Arnott's , Speedo, Kraft , etc etc.

[twiggs]

Remember wolfman, we are talking local nights as defined by our EBA, ie at least 8 hrs between 2200-0800, NOT sunsets or whatever other definitions you can think of that are not relevant.

example, arrive somewhere, say, Monday night signoff 0030, depart 48hrs later, ie sign on 0030 Wednesday night.
Monday night is not a local night, less than 8 hrs from 0030-0800.
Tuesday night is a local night.
Wednesday night is not a local night, less than 8 hrs 2200-0030.

Result: only ONE local night in a 48 hr slip.

I only sent the PM to save the rest of the community the pain of having this ridiculous argument brought up again.
I'm glad you agree that the job is about the destinations though.

[Shlonghaul]

E=mc2 :E :E :E :E

[PER210]

So... what if Qantas colapses... how long do you think it would be before Australia got another full service airline. Would Virgin go more into full service or there happy staying lcc? What are the chances of the Gvt rejecting the take over as well? It sounds like its all fun and games! (i am saying this sarcastically...)

[speedbirdhouse]

"It sounds like its all fun and games!"

I suppose it would if you had little in the way of mental capacity and lived at home where mummy and daddy pay for everything.

For those hardworking Qantas employees who have families to feed and mortgages it most definitely is NOT fun and games..............

THINK.

[flitegirl]

If Qantas collapses? :hmm: I would hardly think the new owners would allow their new purchase to COLLAPSE!! May I suggest you pause for a moment and think about your question.

We are not concerned about a possible demise of Qantas - far from it! Our concern is what the new owners will want to do to our employment terms and conditions. We are already in the firing line with the Government's new work place legislation. This takeover just makes our fight even more important. We are fighting for not just our conditions, but the conditions for future crew which may just be YOU!:=

[buntosser]

can anyone tell me if our super is protected from being pillaged by the new owners.

[PER210]

Terribly sorry if i upset you speedbird... didnt mean to. Should have thought, and re worded before posting... And yes, very correct, as if they would let there new purchase go down the drain. However it is still possible for it to collapse. Its possible for any business colapse, whether its got new owners or not. What does this take over mean for the employees? (condition wise...) News is on now, im sure i'll find something out on there... not as in depth as on here though :).
Thank you for being patient with me...

[Pegasus747]

SUper is governed by the trust deed. It is fully funded and held in trust. Qantas or the new owners cannot access the funds.

What is vitatally important thought is that our trustees continue to stand up for employees and the four employees trustees are well places to protect us .they include Ian Woods the President of AIPA and MIchael Mijatov the Secretary of the FAAA. Having these guys in our corner is a big plus and makes me more confident.

what can happen however is that the new owners could close down the current scheme though and put us all into new schemes. Our current entitlements would be protected i would think even in that circumstance.


We live in challenging times indeed

[speedbirdhouse]

PER210,

no problem. Sorry I was probably a bit sensitive.

Your post reminded me of the insensitive nature that the lizard who runs our company exhibits whenever Qantas staff are mentioned.

I understand that no offence was intended on YOUR behalf.

Thanks.

[DEFCON4]

I am tired of the bully boys.
I am tired of worrying about the turds that run the company.
I am tired of being concerned about the Company`s viability.
I am over worrying about my wages,my job,my conditions.
I have no control over any of this crap.
I still enjoy what I do....... just not who I work for.
I will stay `til the end and extract every last cent from this job and travel for my family.
There was life before QF ......there will be(a different) life after.
If nothing else I am resourceful and a survivor.
The thugs can do what they like...they do not...can not...intimidate me.
PharQue them all!!!!

[roamingwolf]

I'm no economics student but If the takeover gets the go ahead from the gov or costello I have a couple of questions.

Why does the new owners want to delist from the stock exchange?

Does everyone HAVE to sell their shares?

Someone onanother thread reckons that the group want to buy all the shares and that is why they don't want to have QF on the exchange but it sounds as if there are other reasons.What if it is to stop someone else making a hostile takeover of the new owners? What if it is so they don't have to explain anything to the ASX? Can they seperate the different parts of QF and then ree list so that the combined share price or inherent value of the group is bigger than the price they paid for the company in the first place?

I realise that the faaa knows everything and that they have thought of everything that we have all thought of or come up with but if the faaa rep here has gotten over his ego problem I have a suggestion.

What if we don't have to sell our shares? Can we get together with the pilots and other qf employee groups and with union funds buy as many qf shares before the takeover is complete and combine them with the ones we already have.

I reckon that as a group such as cabin crew or whatever under the new IR laws we have little to fight with BUT as a shareholding GROUP we might have a bit more punch in our negotiations.

The pilots have thought of this as a pilot goup but what about a Qantas employee group.I reckon between us there must be a fair number of shares and if we spend as much money as we as individuals can afford plus what the unions could buy we might be able to buy a slice of the pie.

But this is only if shareholders don't have to seel their shares.

ps twiggs NFI

[Pegasus747]

in a buyout, my understanding is that when 90% of the shares are aquired then the remaining shares are compulsorily sold. You dont have a choice "not" to sell them.

The law is complex on acquistions and mergers but the small shareholding of the staff and non institutional shareholders by comparison to the massive shareholdings of the institutional investors make the deal a forgone conclusion one would think.

In terms of the staff banding together to stop the buyout would not be remotely possible as we would need to raise nearly 2 billion dollars of share script to do that.

As the Actu and the fAAA have indicated, the best hope is that the government and regulators step in. This is clearly a good deal for shareholders but not a good one potentially for Qantas or its staff in the longer term.

once qantas is owned as a private company it is far less open to scrutiny like a publicly listed company. The best source of information on the take over are Robert Gottleibsens writings in the papers and also the finincial review.

For its part i am sure the ACTU and Qantas Unions will have a view on this stuff and provide updated informations to their members as they did on thursday and friday. On the FAAA website and via email you can find some preliminary comment from the Qantas unions and the ACTU

[Guardian1]

Firstly, roamingwolf, even though your comments in relation to "the faaa knows everything and has thought of everything" is sarcastic, nevertheless it's true.
Some of you on here have to realise that the qualified staff and the experienced officials of the FAAA are likely to have discussed all scenarios and asked the relevant questions in relation to the matters you raise on here. It would be a real worry if those employed in the FAAA knew less that the members of the FAAA.
Now to your questions:-
1) Once the Macquarie bank consortium reaches 90% acquisitions of Qantas shares , the LAW requires that the remaining shares MUST be sold by those who hold them to the Consortium.
2) What is to stop someone else making a bid of the new owners?- well once they totally own all the qantas shares...qantas will no longer be a listed company on the stock exchange and therefore no one can "take over" the new Qantas because there are no shares to take over. It will be a private Company not listed on the ASX( Aust stock exchange).
3) The only entity or entities that could be then taken over, are the various companies that make up the consortium that own QANTAS, for example Maquarie Bank OR the Texas Company that might happen to be listed public Companies.
4) The new owners could seperate different parts of Qantas and sell them off. Absolutely, this is the case and this is being speculated eg, Qantas catering Qantas holidays etc.
5) Institutional investors ie big companies and fund managers hold 80% of the Qantas stock...so you can see that the takeover is a mere formality... total staff held shares are only about 0.3% of the total in other words 1/300 of total shares.
6) Union super funds are regulated by law like all other super funds...they cannot act in a POLITICAL MANNER TO BUY OR SELL SHARES. If they did, their management would be in prison.
I hope the above substantially answers your questions roamingwolf, and don't feel disappointed that others in the FAAA know more than you or others on this forum.... for pete's sake that is why they are employed and elected!!
Merry xmas roamingwolf :)

[indamiddle]

the only way macquarie etc can be stopped is if someone else
makes a higher bid e.g. $6.00 a share
qf would still be privatised

[qcc2]

can stop the deal how unlikely it may seem. but the big concern is not just the accc but also the US banks which control the 10 bilion plus in debt. a more scary scenario:ugh: Ansett 2 in the making:=

[stubby jumbo]

Why does the new owners want to delist from the stock exchange?

Does everyone HAVE to sell their shares?



Answer to question #1.
My understanding of your first question is that a PRIVATE company ( what we will be from March ) will be run a lot tighter, and not have the AGM's ( saving millions of bucks alone) to worry about as the majority stakeholders /shareholders will be predominately be made up of the Board. It will effectively reduce the layers of management. So that if they want action-they'll get it immediately rather than going thru the layers/silo's that exits at the moment. My prediction is that it will be steady as she goes from now 'till March then if will be FULL STEAM, as the Equity Group will want to see at least a $1billion return for this finacial year......at least. If not , the Sustainable Futures campaign will look like a Wiggles concert in comparison to the next edict.

Q #2.

Anyone with shares will get a cheque in the mail come March for the number of the shares they have x $5.60. My advice is-DO NOT do your own tax return at the end of this financial year as there will need to be some nifty accounting to minimise the tax on the shares , particularly if you have a few!!!

[hawke eye]

Not over yet.
The floating of Qantas on to the public stock exchange achieved two things for the Labor govt at the time.
1 It raised plenty of money for the govt to service its debt(govt selling the family silver).

2 It was shouted from the rooftops by the govt that the sale would allow the public( your average aussie and mum and dad investor) to own a piece of an aussie icon.

It was always firmly held that there was nothing to fear as it was a publicly listed company it would be structured to ensure that no more than 49% could be foreig owned. The rest was to remain Australian.The inference by our leaders that it would always remain the case as it is essential to the national interest and transport strucure of Australia, nationally and internationally.

When it sinks in to Joe Public that their Qantas is not theirs anymore but now owned by a company that is answerable to no one Australian provides it breaks no laws then i think there will be a significant shift in public opinion.
At the moment joe public is concentrating on Christmas and the New year not someone buying an airline.

Once people start contacting politicians and voicing their concern that Qantas is to remain public NOT private property Costello and Howard may listen.They do have an election soon.

Rudd has highlighted the tremendous pressure 10 Billion debt creates for a business that is constantly fighting to remain competitive and profitable.

No Government wants to be known as the one who let Qantas _ Australias greatest icon next to the Harbour Bridge, Uluru and the Opera House, become foreign property. Worse if thorugh some world calamity that it is somehow lost altogether.
Dont be stupid some of you say to yourselves, well who thought when it was publicly floated that it would allow it to become owned by a private business entity. Who ever thought Ansett would collapse?
Time for all of us to stop typing on here for a while and contact all friends, associates and families and get them to call their local federal politician.
Lets get started and stop a privatisation occuring of what should remain the property of the ones whou have bought, paid for and supported it, the Australian public! It should never be allowed!

Time to show the spirit that has made this airline famous. Let us not sit back and watch its demise like happenned to Ansett.We can all do something about it.
Merry Christmas:ok:

[stubby jumbo]

'hate to ruin your Chrissie cheer Hawkeye.

But, you need to get real.

We are playing with the BIG BOYS now.

Joe Public couldn't give a rats rissole, this is just a speedbump on the way to Christmas and Australia winning the Ashes.

By the time the election comes in 2007, everyone would of forgotten.

iCON.......bygone.

This is a "brave new world", we are dealing with people where the mantra is:
WIN AT ALL COSTS, PROFIT BEFORE PEOPLE, BONUS' RULES:hmm:

[hawke eye]

Stubby,
the big boys do win alot of the time, not ALL of the time.

You wont stand a chance with an attitude like that.

You may say you are being real. I call it defeatist.
It wasnt a defeatist attitude which won our forefathers two world wars. It wasnt a defeatist attitude which was used to found and create Qantas.

You mentioned the ashes, cast your mind back a week ago where the aussies snatched victory from what appeared certain defeat.

Everyone should think back to earlier this year when the Snowy River Scheme was going to be sold. I ask you Stubby, what happenned?

Joe public when realising what was going to happen raised a huge outcry that caused a reversal by both the state and the PM.

No it wont be easy.

Lets follow the ACTUs directive which has been republished on here and contact our pollies. Lets show a bit of aussie spirit and have a go.

I hope your not typical of anyone else on here Stubby. Lets rant and rave and bitch in anger and resentment all year long about how we are poorly managed and continually criticise (at times vehemently) management, the FAAA and anyone who has an alternative opinion; But when asked to fight and have a go when facing adversity and a very dark hour, the first post I read is its all too hard, its the Big boys were up against.

I dont want to read a criticism of the FAAA or our representatives until everyone on here leads by example and pics up a phone or a pen and writes.For all the advice thats given on here its time we started doing something other than offer criticism on what wasnt done after the fact.We all have an opportunity now. A small window of two months.They need our help. and we need to help ourselves.

Complaining on here achieves nothing. Mass complaints to politicians and the like starts to ring bells.Remember the snowy river scheme.

[stubby jumbo]

.............a well considered response Hawkeye -Touchez !

Merry Christmas:ok:

[lowerlobe]

We essentially have two problems here.

The first is with the takeover and it's possible ramifications.

The second is with the leadership of the union that represents us.

I agree with Hawkeye that it is time to call in and see your local Federal politician not just call them on the phone.We have an ace up our sleeve and that is the Federal election next year .Politicians usually have only one thing on their minds and that is being re elected and when the election is this close they will be very receptive to ideas on how to get more votes.We can have an impact but we have to do something.

The second problem we have is with our union leadership.Just read the response from Guardian to roamingwolf.If MM and SR actually think they know everything and have thought of everything then they will go the way of the dinosaur and worse still take us with them.The part that I cannot fathom is that not only are they that stupid to actually think that but they are even more brainless and worse, arrogant and egotistical to print it.With their newsletters you would think they represent the company and not us.

The best response they can come up with is to tell us that they have been in talks with the Mac bank for the last 3 months( if you believe that you also believe in the tooth fairy) and a thinly veiled threat for all crew to join the union as well as telling us the blatantly obvious that Howard must go.Yes , that was the measured response from the guys who told us when they were first elected t with much table thumping that would not stand for any rubbish from the company.Now all they can do is tell us and everyone else that we are too expensive and that they are all knowing as if they are some sort of Deity.With them representing us we have a lot of work to do.

[Pegasus747]

Lowerlobe, you are clearly a complete moron. I have never heard any of our FAAA officials say that they know everything. I have read every newsletter and attended every meeting since i became a flight attendant and it has never been said by the current leadership or any of their predeccesors.

I have seen a few anonymous posts in here that some thing or "know" are FAAA officials.

YOu complete dolt Lowelobe, when was the last time you ever offered anything other than critisism. You have never stood for office, you have never got up at a meeting and offered any viable alternates.

Even here, all you do is whinge and critisize. You are one of about 8 people who post in here regularly like myself. We express opinions and discuss things. You almost single handedly link every bad thing that happens to crew to the FAAA.

From my perspective unions have had their wings clipped severely. Given that Long Haul crew still have the best conditions of any crew in the Qantas group and arguably the world, i fail to see how the current FAAA leadership have failed us.

They inherited the worst EBA in the history of the FAAA from the previous leadership and methodically during negotiations and using the media and pressure of threatened industrial action reversed every appalling aspect of that EBA.

At the same time when they came to office they had 500K in the bank, an office manager who worked from home, a receptionsist who no one could understand and a membership officer who hated the members. An office that was run down and costing 120Kpa to rent in the city where members had no access.

Lets look at what was achieved in 2 years since they came to office.

1. Complete reversal of all the failures of EBA 6.
2. An ongoing dialogue with Qantas that has resulted in a few flexibilities that have actually helped to make the Long Haul Division a little more viable.
3. These flexibilities have given the Long Haul FAAA leadership a little credibility with the COmpany in that it "may" lead to another EBA8 rather than the appalling alternatives.
4. The reductions of cost in the FAAA and officials to the tune of taking it from over 36 officials down to 13 keys flight attendant elected officials
5. The Purchase of premises for members that are close to the base for easy accesss and meetings. ( and an asset rather than dead rent)
6. The employment of an accountant to run the FAAA offices and membership system.
7.Two qualified industrial lawyers on the full time staff.


The net result of this is a lean, competent and efficient FAAA that produces timely and concise communication to its members that outshines any union in the country. A union that works hard for its members and provides a boutique level of service and accessibility. A Union that now has 1 Million is cash and a 1.5 million premises paid off. All this in two years.

My question albeity rhetorical is to the former officials.

1. Why did you sell us out in EBA 6 and
2. What did you do with all the money?

[Eden99]

Well said Pegasus 747!!

No one in here takes lowerlobe seriously, as he is very transparent ie. he is probably a whinging non FAAA member.

lowerlobe says he went to the FAAA meetings...... funny how he didnt criticise the FAAA in front of MM or that he did not vote against the resolution that was put at the meeting, becuause only 1 person voted against it out of 814 who attended the meetings and that was MM's predecessor.


So obviously lowerlobe is either a non member or even worse a coward who cannot criticise in public but rather is content to post innane and anonymous attacks on the FAAA in here.

In any case, he is not to be taken seriously.....and i'm sure most in this forum don't.... and certainly he is totally out of touch with mainstream views of the vast majority of crew.

[stubby jumbo]

.................me thinks 'lobe just walked over an Ant's nest!!!

...........or should I say a "boutique" ants nest.:confused:

[qcc2]

boyzs ants nest:E
i understand the domestic faaa secretary DW has taken the package?

[roamingwolf]

I’m in trouble with my missus as I was laughing so much after reading the faaa’s letter.The wife had just made brunch and I was laughing so much I wasn’t eating any.

I reckon the best part was that out of the thousands of crew it was not possible that any of us could not think of something that the faaa has not. I’m not overly religious but there is only one being that knows everything and it aint the faaa. Pal ,we did not vote for you because we reckon you are brain surgeons ,you were elected because no one else put their hand up except the other clowns who screwed up as well.

The other hilarious part in one of their letters is that the union reckons that the company laughs at cabin crew.To whoever in the union wrote that , mate if you want to see who the company is laughing at all you have to do is look in a mirror.

How do you know when a faaa official is at your party? …… he will tell you

It’s not as if we do not have enough to be concerned about with both the new IR laws and the takeover we also have to carry the faaa as well.

I reckon these clowns could not find the floor if they fell out of bed.

Now onto something serious,my idea was not to stop the takeover but to pool all of our shares to have a say in the company.

[qcc2]

as pointed out on another thread here on pprune. read it ,copy it and send it to ur friends in canberra.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

Editorial: Dangers lurking in the cult of the deal
December 16, 2006
Private equity buyouts challenge the nature of capitalism

YOU need not subscribe to the barricades school of economic populism to be concerned about the rash of private equity deals sweeping through Australia and the global economy, of which the proposed $11 billion takeover of Qantas is just the latest example. There is every reason to worry that in using sophisticated and opaque accounting techniques to snatch up companies such as Qantas while minimising their tax contribution to the community, private equity firms are enriching a handful of clever financial engineers and sowing the seeds of the next recession, while in the process tearing down once-great Australian brands. The consortium of raiders assembled to buy Qantas at $5.60 a share is still getting something of a bargain, thanks to investors' historic wariness of airlines. Under the terms of the deal, Macquarie Bank will own 15 per cent of the carrier while offshore investors will take 40 per cent. And although it will probably be refloated in five to 10 years, if the deal is approved Qantas shares will for now cease to trade publicly. In a hopeful sign of the buyers' good intentions, CEO Geoff Dixon has pledged to stay on for at least three years.

Yet a closer look reveals reasons to be less sanguine. Traditionally, when a buyer purchases a company, they assume the operational and tax risks associated with the venture. But the way deals such as the Qantas purchase are structured shifts these burdens onto banks and their customers, as well as the federal government - that is, ordinary taxpayers and citizens. Meanwhile the handful of bankers and accountants responsible for engineering the deal will cream off huge guaranteed success fees, progress fees and then more fees once again when they return the company to the sharemarket. Combined with the fees gouged out of ordinary Australians by Macquarie Bank for the use of basic infrastructure, including Sydney airport, it is easy to see why the public's suspicion is aroused. Central bankers, too, are concerned about the very real threat created by private equity firms gearing themselves so heavily to buy so much debt. The fear is that if central banks raise interest rates to rein in the massive amounts of cash sloshing around the global markets they will cause such structures to collapse, with banks and individual investors left holding the bag. Australians who remember the financial crash of the late 1980s, as well as the tech bubble burst at the turn of the century, are right to feel a flicker of nervousness. These dangers have made for strange bedfellows: ACTU secretary Greg Combet has called Qantas's buyers "parasites", while NAB chief John Stewart warns that the wave of private equity deals could "all end in tears". Even if it does not, given Macquarie Bank's record of hiking prices while cutting service at its other assets such as Sydney airport, there is every reason to be concerned that Qantas service will suffer. And given that Macquarie Bank already controls Sydney airport, its stake in Qantas will create a conflict of interest when it comes to opening up more gates to competing carriers. Already Qantas's value is artificially increased by government policies that protect it from would-be competitors such as Singapore Airlines, which would love to compete on valuable trans-Pacific routes. In an attempt to allay such fears, Mr Dixon assured viewers of Thursday night's 7:30 Report that the travelling public would not see any difference in Qantas service. And to his great credit, he also pledged on Thursday to place his personal windfall from the sale, which could amount to $60 million, into a charitable trust.

While The Australian is a strong supporter of the principle of private ownership and minimal government interference in the markets, we also believe markets do not exist in a moral or financial vacuum. Rather, they exist to see the economy's benefits flow to the maximum number of people in the most efficient way. The great moral defence of capitalism is that it is the most efficient way of producing wealth that benefits the greatest number of people. But the present enthusiasm for private equity takeovers of public companies seems to have flipped this idea on its back. The great industrialists of last century who built Qantas, to say nothing of men like Henry Ford, all made their fortunes by taking risks in the marketplace to build companies that provided new goods and services. Today's private equity mavens deliberately avoid both risk and market scrutiny. All of this sets a tough challenge for the regulators. Peter Costello has not tipped his hand, saying only that although the deal meets foreign ownership requirements he will still apply a national interest test to the sale. This deal means it may be time to have a broader conversation about the role such transactions play in our economy.

merry christmas:ok:

[lowerlobe]

WE all know that Pegasus,Eden and Guardian are the faaa …Are you going to deny here and now that you are not one of the elected officials of the FAAA .

Well ,Pegasus read these posts again….

“I have never heard any of our FAAA officials say that they know everything.” …..

“Firstly, roamingwolf, even though your comments in relation to "the faaa knows everything and has thought of everything" is sarcastic, nevertheless it's true.”

“don't feel disappointed that others in the FAAA know more than you or others on this forum.... for pete's sake that is why they are employed and elected!!”

“Also as Pegasus747 indicated earlier at many of the FAAA meetings the meeting with Maquarie bank was also relayed to the members”…This was from Guardian1.

“also the Macquarie Bank meeting occurred 3 months ago.”

I guess now you are going to tell us here on pprune that the FAAA has never had talks with the Mac Bank….

Honestly…….. you guys are a joke.


It does not worry me in the slightest to stir up the joke that is the FAAA leadership because as roamingwolf said
"I reckon these clowns could not find the floor if they fell out of bed."

[Shlonghaul]

Ants Nest??!!……..think poor lowerlobe walked into a minefield!!….shame that whenever a crew member raises some interesting points that the faaa supporters gang up using school bully boy tactics. Anyway time we all took a cold shower and re-focussed on our common enemy. And you can start by going out and purchasing the Weekend Financial Review and read the cover story by Jennifer Hewitt and James Hall “How to make Qantas soar”……..”with $11 billion on the table, the proposed new owners of Qantas are keen to accelerate CEO Geoff Dixons ambitious plans for the airline ---- behind closed doors”

Some key comments are -----
Having Bob Mansfield, the former Telstra Chairman, as the new public face of the Consortium to take over Qantas. He would be the ideal person to sell the deal as an Australian one. It was vital, after all, that their new man be trusted in Canberra, known by the public and reassuring to shareholders………it could’nt be anyone from Macquarie Bank, regarded as too dominant, too arrogant and too bloody rapacious……..and it
certainly could’nt be a representative of the “foreign barbarians”.

“Backing Dixons already radical plan for the airline while giving him a stronger mandate to implement it than he has ever had before. The nub of this strategy is to drive Qantas’s operating costs lower by rapidly expanding the budget offshoot, Jetstar, which has unit costs 30 percent to 40 percent lower than those of Qantas, while making each part of Qantas accountable for turning a profit from every dollar. Indeed, for all the sentimentality over Qantas. It will be Jetstar that will be the real pilot of the airline".

"Qantas staff can also expect to earn less on aggregate as a result . Dixon has made no secret of his dislike for pilots who earn in excess of $300,000 a year when their peers at Virgin Blue, and now Jetstar, earn about half that and work longer hours. Dixon will not try to sack these people, but he will undertake any expansion plans using his low cost option. Similarly cabin crew earning $60,000 a year on Qantas will find their role in any expansion plans limited as Jetstar pays its new international crew about $35,000 on Australian Workplace Agreements”

“On Thursday Dixon said he would place his long term incentives – likely to be worth $30-$60 million dollars – in a charitable trust. It was another very clever political move in terms of switching the focus away from an estimated $500 million in fees and shares and profits that so many people expect to make out of the deal. This gesture was only one example of the masterful spin that softened the public reaction to the announcement this week”

A very intersesting article indeed. I only wish the authors had mentioned the already obscene amount of money our executives swallow up. Instead of swallowing they’ll now be gagging on their ill gotten gains.

The spin doctors have been well & truly at work with this and their timing is impeccable, just before Christmas, with peoples minds on other things and the main radio & tv business news commentators on holiday. And they’re also using the same spin on the public as they have with the introduction of Jetstar International which in my opinion is a huge con on the Australian public, with it’s flood of advertising about it’s all about choice, choice to buy drinks, meals blankets etc when, as has been pointed out by others here, that you can fly full service airlines such as Thai & Singapore for around the same cost.

Ladies & gentlemen it’s going to be a very interesting 2007.

[hawke eye]

Embarrasing!

After posting a constructive sugesstion I get a first response that its all too hard.Stubby your further response was appreciated.

This is followed by lowerlobe going straight into attack mode . and guess who he aimed at? No surprise, the officials of the FAAA once again. Ill give it to you you are a very good hater lowerlobe.

This is followed by Roaming wolf who has a shot over the bough in between laughs. None of this is a funny or laughing matter for anyone who has an inkling of what is occurring and what the ramifications will be. Roamingwolf contending with new draconian IR laws and a very dominant management is a walk in the park and something we should be looking forward to compared to what is about to occur to us under the new structure taking place before our eyes.

Your attack on the FAAA Roaming about who is laughing at who should be reconsidered following your closing remark about us all banding together with our shares to have a so called say.Once 90% of the shares have been purchased (which they will be - even without our shares) all remaining shares are compulsory to be sold. You will have no shares and there will be no using them to get a say.Who now is laughing at who - sheeeeesh!
You can however buy shares in the entity which will own Qantas.:D

Our only escape from this nightmare before Xmas is Costello and the forthcoming election.
So stop blaming the FAAA, that is wasting time we could all be writing to our members.
Those of you who criticise the FAAA have no idea, according to some on here, no matter what they do or what the Company does(ie now)it is always their fault."they should have seen it coming" "they should have done something different". Geez talk about crystal balls and hindsight. They are not professionals they are just doing the best job they can. Our officials have varying degrees of competence - past and present. They are having a go.

Our vocalising our ignorance on here by this continual childish union bashing is embarrasing.:rolleyes:

[lowerlobe]

Hawkeye,

If you read my post again you will see that I said there were TWO problems not one....

ONE…Is the Takeover

TWO..Is the FAAA leadership...

If we are going to have any hope we need effective leadership and direction from our union and we are NOT getting that.Just ringing up our local member is not enough we need effective representation and I do not believe we are getting anywhere near that from MM and SR. it’s a foregone conclusion that Peg and Guard are the FAAA yet they continually pretend to be someone else as well as berating crew who have the temerity to suggest anything.

My post was not just an attack on the FAAA as you said, it also agreed with you that the takeover is probably a cataclysmic event in our jobs.Darth has always wanted to do things that were not palatable to the public image and now he has the chance and mandate with the company being delisted.

I have always said that we should have a media blitz and raise awareness of our side of the story now finally you are basically saying the same thing but letting the clowns in our union get away with their inept management will not help us in anyway.


By the way I am not a "hater" as you put it in fact I don't hate anyone but if I am going to pay for someone to represent me and my future I have a right to say what I think.

[Guardian1]

lowerlobe and roamingwolf are truly comic figures..... they speak with suck authority...... but alas, they have not got the slightest idea.

Why do you two bother with putting forward drivel??

Stick to the cartexchanges and allow others who understand the issues deal with them.

Talk about being out of their depth!

lowerlobe and roamongwolf discussing industrial matters and the proposed takeover of Qantas is like watching Humphrey bear pretending he understands the Theory of Relativity.

Ah well, it is the silly season after all i guess :)

And lowerlobe still won't say why he didn't have the guts to publicly criticise the FAAA leadership and direction at the recent FAAA meetings. A truly heroic figure he is !

[lowerlobe]

As I said we have a twofold problem and all you get from the FAAA is ridicule instead of constructive and decisive leadership.

Did they admit or deny that they are the FAAA?
Did they explain their statement that the FAAA knows everything and has thought of everything?
Did he explain why he was in meetings with the MAC bank 3 months ago or is that just more horse manure from the stables in Ewan St where the geldings are kept?

The meeting that I was at never mentioned any discussions with anyone let alone Mac Bank.
There was never any mention about pre or post reform EBa’s.
There was however a suggestion that the FAAA start a media campaign and which the people there said they would look at and nothing has happened.

I did not raise any issues because it seemed as though things were being managed efficiently and they were listening to the members but as usual it was just hollow rhetoric.
Yet time and again on pprune the FAAA spokesperson tells us that there are certain confidential initiatives that we don’t need to know about. I really wonder what these people are doing in the bunker.

Just when we face probably the biggest single threat and what do we get from the FAAA…. A newsletter threatening those who are not members to join and to vote Howard out. A 5 year old could have come up with that.

Guardian1…Are you one of the elected FAAA officials?
Pegasus747 …Are you one of the elected FAAA officials?

Explain why you said “ faaa knows everything and has thought of everything" is sarcastic, nevertheless it's true.”

As far as your post is concerned Guardian1 I think you summed up your ability with the phrase "suck authority"

Get over your ego and do your job that you profess to be so good at and listen to crew with ideas

[Pegasus747]

As was told to crew at the meetings, the Qantas Unions under auspices of the ACTU, (including pilots, flight attendants , engineers) met with the institutional investors of Qantas some months ago.

The purpose of the meeting was to assure the institutional investors that the combined Unions wanted a cooperative working relationship with Qantas management and that the collective approach had delivered qantas good results over the last years.

The acquisition of Qantas by private interests had not been made public at that stage and those institional investors (other than MAC BANK) will be divesting their interests in qantas to the private consortium.

There is little point in each union working separately and contacting the new potential owners. The combined Unions are working collectively and with the ACTU to communicate a joint position.

If it becomes necessary to have media activity etc, its better that the unions work together than individually, and that it what i believe is occuring.

That is the crux of the meetings with MAC Bank that occurred some time ago. When the meeting occured it was not widely publicised to any Qantas staff by any union. There was some comment on questioning at the most recent series of FAAA meetings however.

As far as taking the suggestions of crew...the FAAA offical are crew , they fly and communicate online every day and through the FAAA office. Those people to write the the FAAA and make suggestions are always replied to and acknowledged.

Given that the Qantas Unions work together closely and share a diverse range of ideas from a range of employees and highly qualified staff it would be rare that something that comes up in an anonymous and cantankerous site like pprune would not have already been considered or discussed.

To suggest that any Union let alone the FAAA would not listen to feedback is inconsistent with common sense. I would suggest that just as flight attendants and other employees let of steam in here, so to might some union officials.

The public and "not anonymous" position of the FAAA can be found by talking to the officials directly and in their newletters and other communications.

Whether Lowerlobe is actually Johanna Brem has been discussed by many but we will never know. Although many are convinced that the lowerlobe diatribe is straight out of the bavarian IR textbook from the past

[roamingwolf]

gee,I go out for a couple or more quiet beers on a Sunday and when I come back I see hell has broken loose.

Lets not have any more personal bickering and start working together.The kids and my missus probablt wonder what the laughter coming out of the spare room when I'm on the computer is all about and a good blue now and again clears the air alright.

I reckon if lowerlobe is johanna then that must make me either TW or GB. I'll have to look in the mirror again and see who I look like.

at the start I did not mean to stop the takeover but just that I read the pilots were trying to see if they could get enough shares to get a seat.As I said business economics are like normison to me and thats why I asked the question.But if anyone asks another question or has an idea lets not break out the boxing gloves again.

I intend to phone my local federal member tomorro ,how about posting the results of these calls here on pprune and maybe even give the polies the website for pprune to show them some of the feelings.

[TightSlot]

It's getting personal again... you all know by know where this can lead.

Behave!!!

[roamingwolf]

Todays Australian has an article that the pilots are trying to raise enough money to buy a block of shares..

If this is right I reckon we should have a look at it and see if we can join them.it look like they have a different legal opinion to the faaa.

[lowerlobe]

roamingwolf,

It is also on channel 7 this morning as well....

[Pegasus747]

There is enormous risk in buying shares now. The current price is $5.29. If Unions talked their members into buying shares and potentially mortguaging thier home etc to buy shares to potentially stop a takeover, then inevitably the share price would plummet if the deal went through. Leading to massive losses for staff.

The private consortium is not interested in staff raising enough capital for a seat at their table as a partner in the buyout. The whole idea is to drive down staff costs and that would be inconsistent with having a staff member on the new board.

[B]"QANTAS unions meet tomorrow to forge a united front amid growing concerns the Macquarie Bank consortium's $11 billion takeover of the national airline will mean job losses.

Almost a dozen unions representing workers, including those covering pilots, flight attendants, engineers and baggage handlers, will meet on a teleconference to discuss their strategy amid growing uncertainty among Qantas's 35,000-strong workforce.

The Australian Workers Union's secretary, Bill Shorten, said the market valued the deal at less than the $11.1 billion price tag to be paid by the Airline Partners Australia private equity consortium. But he said it remained unclear how the private equity players, led by Macquarie Bank and Texas Pacific Group, would seek to generate returns.

"There is lack of detail … the case for this private equity deal is not clear," Mr Shorten said yesterday. "We want them to tell us what it means for jobs, what it means for regional air routes and what it means for consumers."

Unions have had little joy in their attempts to talk to Qantas's proposed new owners. Mr Shorten described informal talks with the consortium as "tightlipped" and the Australian and International Pilots Association attempted last week to talk to the consortium but is still waiting for a reply.

"This sort of deal is not going to be good news. Private equity is there for a reason - the history of these things is that employees tend to be burned," the association's general manager, Peter Somerville, said yesterday.

Unions have had combative relationships with Qantas management as chief executive Geoff Dixon and his team have sought to vigorously rein in costs.

Tomorrow's meeting, organised by the ACTU, marks the latest development in attempts to foster cross-union co-operation in dealings with Qantas, amid heightened fears of further pressure on wages as a result of the deal.

Mr Shorten stopped short of suggesting the unions might resort to industrial unrest but he admitted "there is a lot of water to go under this deal yet".

Shares in Qantas closed up 1c at $5.29 on Friday, still almost 6 per cent less than the consortium's offer price of $5.60."

[Pegasus747]

typo in my previous post..... if the deal does not go through then the share price "would" plumment..... Thus the danger of buying shares at inflated prices as a result of buyout speculation

[hawke eye]

Roaming wolf & Lower lobe,
Do you really think cabin crew are going to put their tight fisted hands in their pockets to buy Qantas shares? Currently many crew have no clue as to the dire situation we are facing.

Even if they did there is no guarantee that there would be enough supporters of such an idea they would contribute and purchase shares. If not enough purchase shares then we do not achieve the 10 % required to block the sale then the effort used on organising that agenda has wasted valuable time that could be used to combat the sale by other means ie raising public awareness, opinion and support. If you do raise the 10% required meaning everyone has purchased shares at $5.00 plus whatwould those shares then be worth? If the sale is blocked the share price will drop.

My guess is the share price would fall dramatically. Its a nice pie in the sky idea filled with alot of ifs and plenty of pitfalls.
The main pitfall is getting cabin crew who were screaming at the loss of earnings due to forced LSL or the scream we hear when union fees are raised in getting them to contribute.
There is a shortage of Pilots around the world so in one form or other there futures have some security. Bearing that in mind I dont think pilots would support it.Unfortunately that is not the case with us.

Its good to come forth with ideas guys but keep em real and keep em coming. Oh lowerlobe , great restraint shown by submitting a post without bashing the FAAA.keep it up. You might start to get taken seriously:ok:

[NIGELINOZ]

Quoting ROAMINGWOLF "Lets not have any more personal bickering and start working together."
Never a truer word has been spoken,as a person who does not work in the industry but has flown Qantas 47 times this year I have to say that personal attacks on each other will do nothing to help solve the issues associated with the takeover.
There has never been a greater need for all Qantas staff,union or not to put aside disagreements and show a united front,obviously it is not for me to say that this will have any effect on what happens re job losses etc but having worked for many years in the corporate world I know that negotiating as a professional,united group will always command greater respect than a disorganised rabble(not that I suggesting that is what is happening now).
Despite having misgivings about the way this has been handled I have a lot of respect for the business acumen of people like Peter Yates (head of Allco and the man Kerry Packer brought in to sort out the One Tel mess) and I believe that he is the sort of man who will talk openly and frankly about plans to sell off Qantas business units and will deal honestly with unions, Many may feel I am being naive on this point but I believe in the aussie tradition of giving a bloke a fair go,lets see what happens.
And yes, I know that I speak from outside and my livelihood is not at stake,I understand how some of you must be feeling,but please don't let this stop you from having a merry christmas and presenting a strong,united and as always has been the case,professional group of Qantas employees.I know you can do it.work together.:ok:

[roamingwolf]

Hawkeye,

My post was I guess another idea but it was made after seeing that the pilots were thinking of it.I reckon it does not take a brain surgeon to see that if another group in your company is trying something then we should at least look at it.

If we don't do that then we are not looking at everything we can do and by the way has anyone rung their local politician?

[hawke eye]

Roaming,
fair point. And yes at least one person has, Me.
I told his assistant it was reminiscent of the Snowy River Scheme and I and thousands of other aussies wanted some of our iconic institutions to remain a supported and iconic legacy for future aussie (not texan ) generations to enjoy and be proud of, not divided up and ruined.I told him we would not vote for a Government come election time if they did not hold such values as an important part of our way of life.
He believed me. I was very sincere in offering my concerns and my voting intentions.

[r3please]

You are free to move your superannuation to another fund. The Colonial 1st state super fund has been very good for me :)

[lowerlobe]

Lurker ,
I have asked QF super and they categorically deny the new owners or any owners for that matter can touch our money. Having said that, stranger things have happened. However if it did Darth would have to move overseas as well as most of the board of Mac Bank.

R3please,
The point is that our money is in a super fund and it is supposed to be safe. If we move it to another fund, is it any safer from the dangerously ever-present corporate thieves who pervade every part of our life.

I find it funny though that a certain ex NSW labour Premier who nearly wrecked the NSW economy is now a consultant to guess which bank?

I remember when I joined QF and it was something to be very proud of. The company advertised how good the conditions were and to be honest they were. It was money in the bank however now, all of the things that were promised to us as part of our remuneration package are now supposed to be a privilege not a right.I imagine that a lot of things such as staff travel that we take for granted although greatly reduced are at risk from the new owners.

On another note I guess that Pegasus’ letter was as close as he will ever get to admitting that he and Guardian are the elected officials of the FAAA but I did get a laugh out of my supposed identity.Well,whether Guardian is the albino is as irrelevant as is my identity.However if the FAAA holds back with their usual rhetoric and ridicule then I will as well. Can someone pass the schnapps?

I still believe though that we have to fight fire with fire rather than sitting on our hands and if Darth tells the press that we are paid more than other crew then we should point out to the media that our board is paid far more on a percentage basis than other airlines corporate managers.

[lowerlobe]

Lurker,
Yes I know what you mean and although I am very sceptical about anything published by the media ..stranger things have happened before as I said.

[r3please]

Ask ex ANSETT employee's how safe their super was. Did they ever see any of it?

[speedbirdhouse]

I've just been informed by senior Qantas Management that Geoff is going to use his $60 million charity proceeds to set up an orphanage for the bastard children of Australian corporate executives

Ooohhhh.............that's gotta hurt.

Get that man a saucer of milk. :E :E :E

[sydney s/h]

r3please,

yeah they did.

[lowerlobe]

r3 please,

An employees did get SOME money but not all of it and that is a travesty.

The Ansett super was set up totally differently to that of QF.Apparently ours is set up in a different company it perhaps it would be better if the FAAA super rep would explain here how this is so.

Now is that Pegasus or Guardian ?

[jaded boiler]

Well it seems QF shorthaul pilots have decided to remain on their expired pre reform EBA for the time being, in order to maintain their existing terms and conditions, and avoid exposing themselves to potentially having a post reform EBA cancelled with 90 days notice. Interesting....

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Excuse a pilot for butting in here but JB has raised the point and I think it germane to point out a glaring difference in opinion about the value of remaining on a pre-reform EBA between the pilots union and the FAAA.

The difference as I understand it is that the only way to cancel a pre-reform EBA is when it is in the "public-interest". So to cancel the current F/A awards would have to be done in some way with demonstrated that. How Geoff Dixon could show that, provided the FAAA acts in a responsible manner and bargains in good faith, is difficult to surmise. I suggest it would be almost impossible.

If the company becomes privately owned, I would suggest that there would be zero chance of Dixon convincing a judge that cancelling long held and properly negotiated awards could be construed as being in the public interest.

In which case being on the current EBA, with an election looming, may be the safest course.

[qcc2]

and i think the faaa has been paying attention to the shorthaul pilots eba.
the papers report some of the actu head honchos are in a bit of a dilemma. they dont want the sale of qf but they also sit on the boards of industry superfunds which have exposure to qf. i hope they will take the long term view;)
as for geoff's continious assurance it is "business as usual". yeah right
show us the details of the finacial plan then we can assess what is going down in the future:=

[jaded boiler]

Thankyou for your input Borg. This has been my interpretation also.

As I'm inevitably about to be labelled an "armchair" IR expert, I'd just like to state that I'm also something of an "armchair" philosopher, so I might share some bon mots that seem rather prescient.

It appears that there is tendency amongst humans, particularly when in small groups, to consciously see that which they desire to see. We seem to have difficulty perceiving concepts and ideas which may evoke personally negative connotations, whilst seeing with increasing mollification things that are felt to be positive, and ostensibly comply with the group goal. Ideas that initially provoke anxiety and defensiveness, for instance, either because of an individual or group's personal histories, biases or perceptions, require much greater elucidation before being properly understood.

In the current perilous IR environment, the widest-ranging legal opinions need to be sought, and considered with an open mind, before reaching a consensus on the best way forward. Employee representatives need to avoid being dogmatic, and be flexible enough to unashamedly alter tactics, should more effective options present themselves.

Finally, remember at the next election, the present federal government is no friend of employees. End of rant, time for a bex and a cup of tea.

[lowerlobe]

It's obvious that the FAAA are easily offended and are quick to respond to any criticism whether real or inferred.

However,It's time that the FAAA stated the position of our superannuation and if they still believe that a pre reform EBA is not advantageous compared to negotiating a post reform EBA.

Can the FAAA explain why the s/h tech crew made their decision ?

You can do that here or in a newsletter "Imprimatur"

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I can tell you why the S/H tech crew made their decision. The deal on offer did not include any CPI rises to the hourly rate which, long term, grossly affects remuneration and super. It was in effect a four year pay freeze

Also a key plank of AIPA stance is that the company gives undertakings that on expiry of the EBA, that current conditions will remain intact. The company refuses to do this, quoting the line, "We do not intend to cancel the award so there is no need to put that in writing." Akin to North Korea saying, "We don't intend to ever use nuclear weapons so there is no need for us to agree not to build them."

It should be noted that this was not the actual EBA vote, but an internal AIPA poll, laying out the facts as the negotiating team sees them and asking for the opinion of the members whether further negotiation is required.

75% of respondents did not see the deal as being acceptable.

[roamingwolf]

Just when I thought it was a done deal another bit of info comes our way which I reckon is at odds with what the faaa tell us.

Boys ,if the techies reckon the way to go is to stay on their eba then maybe we should think twice about trying to get a new one for us.

This kind of makes sense if a new eba with the new IR laws is a bit iffy then I reckon we should stay with what we know.

This going to get some of you guys in the office upset but I'm sure you can see the point and if the pilots union has got legal advice to do it then we should look at it real close


Twiggs,

I told you ,no more pm's. I'm not interested, NO means NO

[Pegasus747]

My understanding is that the FAAA leadership is not in any hurry to see the end of our current EBA.

What has been mooted is that if a new EBA were possible and maintained enoigh of what is important then it might be worth taking a new agreement to flight attendants for a vote.

If what is on offer does not give the necessary guarantees and benefits then we would stay on our current EBA and would be no worse off.

To commence any discussions with Qantas is not dangerous. But as i have previously said on here, i dont believe that a new and early EBA is of interest to Qantas.

I think that they would rather wait and see if Howard gets reelected and take everything rather than settle for potentially less than that.

The next 12 months will be very interesting and the private ownership has thrown additional complexity to an already precarious position.

As a very senior manager said recently if you think that i cant replace all sh/lh crew at half the current price you are kidding yourselves. they may lack experience but they will make up for that in enthusiasm and be acrosss the job in less than six months.

Goodwill, experience and loyalty/dedication dont seem to be able to compete with that. Workchoices/Howard and the new right mantra are the compelling choice available to both Dixon now and potential new owners

[priapism]

R3Please,

Ansett crew got all their super and quickly. ( wrong again lowerlobe but don't let the facts get in the way of a good bit of scaremongering )The fund was fully funded at the time of the collapse and always had been thanks to the good work of the trustees, 3 of which were flight attendants and union reps.

My understanding is that if there is a surplus in company superannuation funds ( i.e there is more in there than required to pay everyone out ) then the company can use the surplus.

I am assuming that the 231 mill. is surplus at present . This can occur with benefit promise type funds when investment performance exceeds the amount promised.

I would imagine the super you are entitled to is safe and sound .

Are many flight attendants/union reps trustees of your super fund??

[jaded boiler]

Good post Pegasus. All too often unions, organised labour and indeed the Labor Party itself seem more interested in internicine bickering than forming a united front to take on the true enemy.

People need to put personality issues aside and focus on the real challenges.

[lowerlobe]

Priapism,

Hate to rain on your parade but things with Ansett were not as cosy and cut and dried as you have made out.You statement that all employees got their super and quickly seems at odds with this report.

“As you can see this was an extremely difficult and complex situation. As there were five Ansett Superannuation Plans (some with the same directors) there were a multitude of problems to deal with. Whilst the commercial settlement effectively means no more money will be paid into the superannuation funds, had the Trustee not commenced proceedings in 2001, then they would not have achieved a further $39m going directly to their members as cash payments. Other Ansett Superannuation Plan members will share in the balance as well as other Ansett employees who were not members of the five plans”.

“The current insolvency provisions in the Act are inadequate to protect outstanding superannuation entitlements. It is obvious that trust deeds could be amended to make the employer directly liable to fully fund the trust, but if the Act is not amended to firstly recognise this priority and secondly to stop Administrators from varying this priority, then no outstanding superannuation entitlements will be fully protected.”
Apparently Ansett had not made any employer contributions for August and Sept ( obviously up to the time of the collapse) and action had to be taken to recoup those funds.

Priapism,I don’t know what else you think I have got wrong but it doesn’t seem to be the case here does it.

[roamingwolf]

Pegasus,
Thanks mate for your post but it would be good if you could also give us some idea of our super.Sorry mate but I realise that you are not one of the faaa guys (wink wink) but we need some info on how safe our super is.

In pprune speak what you said was that the faaa went to the company to see if they would talk but it looks like they gave you guys the cold shoulder.So now the faaa is saying they were only seeing what the water was like and really did not want to go for a swim anyway unless the waves were beaut.

So now you reckon all we can do is to sit back and watch unless the libs get voted out and GD might want to have a beer and a chat

[Pegasus747]

When talking to a trustee of the super fund some months ago, i was left with no doubt that our super is fully funded and the company cannot get its hands on it becuase of the trust deed and they way its managed and funded.

there is some talk of an amount of money that they could get their hands on but the trustees i am sure will be doing what they can to block that avenue if possible, but even so it appears it would not affect whats on your current statements,

At the recent FAAA meetings it was made clear that the FAAA have not approached the company to terminate the current EBA early not have they asked them to start early negotiation. conversely, the company has not indicated formally that they are even interested in an EBA 8 even when the current one expires.

What the FAAA has been talking about at its meetings is a range of strategies designed to maximise our chances of getting another EBA as opposed to the other more draconion options available under work choices.

It would indeed in my view be a very good thing if Qantas indicated a desire to commence discussions on EBA8 at any stage . The alternatives under workchoices legislation would be catastrophic for crew ...have no doubt.

I see little point though for those in here that care about these issues to work yourselves into a lather at this stage. Much of it is completely out of our control and we must play a certain amount of the waiting game.

[priapism]

Lowerlobe,

I can only partially agree with you.

There were 5 Ansett superannuation plans.

The Ansett Australia Super Plan,
The Flight Attendant benefits scheme,
The Ansett Australia Pilot's Accumulation Plan,
The Ansett Australia Flight Engineers Plan ,
The Ansett Australia Pilot's/management Plan.

The first 4 were all paid out . The pilot's/management fund did experience problems , concerning the issues which you have pointed out - but these have been resolved and all members paid their full outstanding superannuation benefits. The plan will be formally closed in the very near future. ( if it hasn't been already-it takes quite a bit of time to deregister companies etc.)

This information has been on the Ansett Australia employees website for quite some time now.

[twiggs]

You are very scary Roaming wolf.
Firstly you take your username from a post I made.
You constantly quote posts I made long ago and out of context.
You use comments I made previously when lowerlobe was sending me offensive PM's as your own comments about my PM's.
I have answered your questions regarding local nights, thus exposing yours, and many others here, lack of knowledge of our EBA terms and conditions.
Why do you respond with something like "NFI" when I offer my explanation?
It seems that one of your main purposes contributing on here is to monitor my posts and try to ridicule me.
In your public profile you still list your interests as "roaming forests looking for twiggs"
??????????????

[lowerlobe]

Priapism,

If the super was fully funded then the trustees would not have had to take the issue to court to recoup funds.

The company under Australian law was supposed to have made their company contributions and usually did so on a monthly basis however were in arrears at the time of the collapse.

We all know how long court cases can be dragged out and in particular this one was stared in 2002 and only concluded in 2004 so I don’t know how you can describe that it was concluded quickly.

In addition there was the proviso that if the trustees agreed to a lesser amount the administrators would also agree so long as they did not pursue the matter.

So some employees received less super than they were entitled and their payout had to be adjusted. This was the part that I referred to as a travesty.

[roamingwolf]

Pegasus,
Thanks mate for your reply and as I thought we can only sit back and wait. I just would like the next election to be now because I have not found a soul who wants the libs back in.

Has anyone else got any ideas ?

Twiggs,

I know you have read my answer to you and I reckon there is no need for it anylonger so I have deleted it.

[Pegasus747]

The following media release has just been distributed.

QANTAS CEO RESPONDS TO MISLEADING REPORTS

The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas Airways, Mr Geoff Dixon, said
today that much of the speculation and comment surrounding the proposed
takeover of Qantas was wrong and, in some cases, deliberately
misleading.

Mr Dixon said that any proposed ownership change for Qantas needed
informed debate and needed to take into account the market in which
Qantas operated.

“The international aviation market is grossly distorted by government
ownership and financial support for airlines and airports.

“In this context, Qantas is one of the least protected airlines in the
world and it is fanciful in the extreme to suggest otherwise.

“It is also laughable to see some editorial writers and commentators, in
particular, calling for more competition for Qantas from city states and
countries that skew all their aviation assets for national purposes,” he
said.

Mr Dixon said many of those making near hysterical statements now were
the same people who had opposed just about every change Qantas had made
since privatisation 11 years ago.

“They are, of course, supported by the usual gaggle of monopoly airport
providers in Australia and the government owned and supported carriers
such as Singapore Airlines.

“If Qantas had not fought for its position against such blatant self
interest and if we had not changed work practices, attacked
inefficiencies and invested billions of dollars on product and service,
we would be a much diminished airline now and Australia would be much
the poorer for it,” he said.

Mr Dixon said Qantas had for many years and, increasingly so since its
privatisation, maintained a “social compact” with the Australian
community.

This had, among many things, involved:

Qantas and government working together to achieve balanced outcomes
for Australia in the regulatory system that provided market access
for airlines worldwide;

Qantas making significant compromises in restructuring its various
businesses to keep jobs in Australia;

Qantas providing extensive financial, operational and people
resources in times of crisis, from Cyclone Tracy some 32 years ago to
the collapse of Ansett, the Bali bombings and the Asian tsunami in
more recent times; and

Qantas support, year in and year out, for large and small charitable,
cultural and sporting organisations.

Mr Dixon said this sense of responsibility to Australia was a core part
of Qantas’ DNA and would not change under what would remain majority
Australian ownership if the bid for Qantas by Airline Partners Australia
was successful.

“We acknowledge that Qantas’ iconic status means people, in particular
legislators and regulators in Canberra, have a genuine interest in the
leadership and future of the company.

“This genuine interest should not be overshadowed by the noise from the
self-interested and ill-informed,” he said.

Mr Dixon said it was important to put some facts on record about the
misleading speculation on the following issues:

Qantas Remaining Australian

“Airline Partners Australia’s proposal would see Qantas continuing to be
Australia-based, majority owned and effectively controlled by
Australians,” Mr Dixon said.

“It will continue to be Australia’s national carrier and one of the
primary ambassadors for the country overseas. It is completely wrong to
suggest that would change.”

Open Skies

Mr Dixon said the call for Open Skies by Brisbane and Melbourne Airports
and certain government owned and supported competitors was breathtaking
in its hypocrisy. It ignored the realities of the situation, namely:

The most protected and privileged positions in Australian aviation
are held by the unregulated monopoly airports that have increased
charges by between 50 per cent and 228 per cent over the past six
years.

As revealed in the Productivity Commission’s recent review of price
regulation of airport services, charges in Brisbane in 2005 exceeded
those of airports such as Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur
and Dubai where Qantas’ major international hub-based competitors
reside.

Since 2000, the Qantas Group has increased international seats
departing from Brisbane by 73 per cent and from Melbourne by 24 per
cent.

The aviation policy settings that the Australian Government announced
in February this year, including the decision to not allow Singapore
Airlines access to the trans-Pacific route, weighed the interests of
consumers, exporters, tourism stakeholders and foreign airlines and
the economic and strategic benefits flowing from an Australia-based
aviation industry.

Australia is already one of the most liberalised aviation markets in
the world, with 43 international carriers flying in and out each
week.

All United States airlines can seek to operate on the trans-Pacific
route. Four airlines are expected to be providing direct services
between Australia and the US within two years and four more already
providing one-stop services – hardly the protected route that some
people like to suggest.

Open Skies is a distant goal in an industry that continues to operate
under a bilateral air rights system, and Australia cannot
unilaterally establish global open skies.

Qantas is not allowed to fly on many routes including Shanghai-London
and New York-London. It is capacity constrained on many more routes,
including Singapore-Paris, and Hong Kong-London.

“Rather than blaming Qantas for the shortcomings of their airports,
Brisbane and Melbourne Airports would be better placed to attract
customers by offering more attractive prices and improving their current
service standards,” Mr Dixon said.

Sydney Airport

Mr Dixon said the suggestion that Qantas might get favourable treatment
from Sydney Airport due to the less than 15 per cent equity stake
Macquarie Bank would hold in Qantas under APA’s proposal was wrong.

“From our experience the owners of Sydney Airport, including various
Macquarie infrastructure funds, are solely interested in the performance
of the Airport and not its major client, Qantas. This will not change
due to Macquarie Bank’s limited interest in Qantas,” he said.

“This position is very different to that of our hub-based competitors in
Singapore, Dubai, Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur where the Government owns
both the Airport and the Airline.

“Our approach to dealing with the unregulated monopoly airports,
including Sydney Airport, will not change as a result of the proposed
transaction. Sydney Airport is currently seeking special leave to appeal
to the High Court to overturn the declaration of domestic aeronautical
services under Part iiiA of the Trade Practices Act. Qantas will again
vigorously argue that Sydney Airport should be declared at the High
Court.”

Restructuring

Mr Dixon said Qantas could not stand still as competitors around the
globe aggressively restructured their businesses.

“United States legacy carriers are transforming their cost structures
under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, consolidation is also occurring
at pace in the United States, Europe and parts of Asia, and many hub
airlines enjoy the benefits of direct and indirect government support,
including common ownership of airlines and airports,” he said.

“We do not have some of the structural advantages that our competitors
do, so we must continually reinvigorate our business within our
regulatory and policy framework to ensure we remain competitive.

“Change has always been – and will continue to be – critical to Qantas’
success.

“Our track record of outstanding customer service, investment and growth
speaks for itself.”

Frequent Flyer Program

“The Frequent Flyer Program is a strong, viable program prized by our
most valuable customers and a critical contributor to the company’s
success,” Mr Dixon said.

“Some people are trying to draw a parallel between a change of ownership
of Qantas and Ansett’s collapse. That is wrong – we are not broke and
we will not go broke.

“We will not take people’s points away from them. It is in our
interests to make sure the Program is as strong as it can be.

“Like any area of our business, we will continue to review the program
to make sure it is providing benefits that our customers want and
operating well for us – that is no different to what we have done for
many years.”

Full Service

“Our full service operations, under the Qantas brand, are a key driver
of the Group’s profitability, with excellent positions in the domestic
market and in key international markets,” Mr Dixon said.

“As we have stated repeatedly, our two-brand strategy is about ensuring
a strong future for our full service brand, while adding a value-based
airline that is better suited to some markets.

“Qantas is one of the world’s leading premium carriers, ranked number
two globally for customer service for the past two years in the
benchmark Skytrax customer survey. We have achieved this because we
have continued to invest in the business through one of the more
turbulent periods in aviation history.”

Regional Services

“Our extensive regional network, operated by QantasLink, provides an
important competitive advantage for the Group,” Mr Dixon said.

“QantasLink has invested in new, larger aircraft, providing a 17.5 per
cent increase in capacity last year with further growth this year.

“We are committed to regional Australia.”

Jetstar

“Jetstar is the only value-based model established by a full service
airline to have reported profits for two straight years since start-up.
Last month, it became the first long haul international value-based
airline,” Mr Dixon said.

“We are aggressively expanding Jetstar to provide profitable growth in
markets that are not economic with the Qantas product and cost
structure.”

Engineering

“We have undertaken an extensive review of our engineering operations
over the past year, with the aim of achieving globally competitive costs
and efficiency,” Mr Dixon said.

“Rather than take the easy option of moving large parts of our
maintenance activities offshore, we are well advanced on strategies to
restructure our wide-body and narrow-body heavy maintenance operations
within Australia and have already moved closer to world best practice
efficiency.

“This maintains a skilled jobs in Australia.

“If we get this right, we will have the opportunity to bring
maintenance of aircraft that are now offshore back onshore.”

Defence

Qantas’ commitment to ongoing cooperation and support (when requested)
to the Australian Defence Forces is total, ongoing, and always will be.

[lowerlobe]

Thats right and there are 110 million reasons for the takeover to be approved

[twiggs]

Twiggs,

I know you have read my answer to you and I reckon there is no need for it anylonger so I have deleted it.

Don't lie, the post was extremely provocative with it's sexist content.
You were either instructed to modify it or you realised how bad you would look if any more people read it and did it off your own bat.

[captainrats]

Can you two take your boring sniping somewhere else?
This is an Aviation Forum,not a Comedy Club for the dysfunctional.