Strikebreakers
Qantas HR appear extremely disorganised when it comes to hire on new crew, but this is borne from other depts. flight planning, ops etc. who decide on new routes/extra flights at the last minute. HR are then left to fill vacancies but company directives to 'right size' mean they have to be careful not to hire crew who may not be needed later on.
The contract situation is perfect for QF. Offer 10 months and if things are looking good at the end of it you might be kept on. If you aren't kept on at least its good experience to have on your resume.
I took the gamble a few years ago and accepted a 6 month contract with QF. At the end of the contract I was made permanent. Some people were not, I don't know how the company decided who they kept but I feel it was more a numbers game and they didn't look into performance when making the decision.
The company are extremely short of crew at the moment. They have asked crew to cancel leave and in short haul they have asked people to volunteer to work on their days off with a guarantee of 8hrs IPD (time and a half) pay whether you work or not. The company's official line is that they are short due to unplanned flying and crew courses but I read that as 'we got the numbers wrong again due to lack of foreplanning'.
The company also have to allow SH crew to drop hours and I don't think they had factored in how many people would drop to 65hrs and leave heaps of flights uncrewed. The casual crew were hired to fill this 'open time' but they still don't have enough people to cover it.
34R - Actually I think you will find it long haul crew who are heading for industrial action. The company are planning to open a London base in 2005 and this would mean a huge change in our flying patterns. We have Auckland and Bangkok based crew already so a London base would devastating for Australian based crew, in particular junior crew who can only get London trips.
The plan so far is to have the London based crew operate Heathrow to Asia (Singapore, Bangkok, Shanghai, Mumbai) and have Australian crew operating up to Asia. The cost savings for the company would be no overnights in London so saving money on hotels and allowances which have to be paid in UK Pounds.
The problem with this is that Junior Australian crew need LHR trips in order to make a liveable salary. The fact is you just can't live on the base wage in Sydney / Melbourne.
To save costs in London the crew will not work for QF but for a labour company (Similar to The Kiwi and Thai crew who actually work for Adecco). QF would not have to pay super / sick pay / provide staff travel etc. so saving a lot of money. Although they would need to pay a substantial base pay for people in London because its just so expensive to live there.
So where would Australian crew fly to? Thai and Kiwi crew already do Jo'Berg, LA, Auckland, Bangkok and Frankfurt.
Our EBA has a limit to the amount of o/s crew and the company is trying to raise this. As much as I hate to say this I think it will end in industrial action and for an extended period of time so it hurts the share price (which is also G. Dixon seems to care about).
I don't want to inconvenience out customers with cancelled flights etc. but why should Australian jobs go o/s? We have to stand up to QF and not let them erode our working conditions.
QF knows industrial action is likely so can use the 10 month contractors as strike breakers. They did this last time LH crew went on strike. QF gave SH casuals 1 day 747 training and then passengered them all over the network (on Virgin Blue, Cathay Pacific, United) so they could operate flights!
I've cut and pasted a recent memo from the FAAA :
-OVERSEAS BASES-
THE FAAA POSITION
Last week I contacted Qantas in relation to the mounting speculation that Qantas was seriously contemplating the opening of additional overseas bases and the employment of more overseas based crew. The speculation centred particularly on the establishment of a London base and the possibility that Qantas will want to remove the current cap restriction on overseas based crew (370).
The Company responded to my queries in similar terms to the newsletter issued by Mark Hassell to you dated 31 March 2004.
The FAAA believes that it is the intention of the Company to establish a London base with approximately between 350-400 cabin crew employed by contract. We further believe that if the base is established that Australian Long Haul crew will not be flying to London.
Let there be no ambiguity, the FAAA will oppose by all means available any attempt by Qantas to remove the 370 cap on overseas-based crew. The manner by which Qantas resolves the Divisional Flying negotiations and the issue of overseas bases will be the litmus test for its likely behaviour in EBA VII negotiations later this year.
The outcome of these two issues will determine the industrial stance that the FAAA leadership will adopt in the coming months. Cabin Crew should be under no illusion that an expansion of overseas based crew is a direct threat to your working conditions and to the ability of Australian based crew to obtain favourable outcomes in future EBA rounds.
The FAAA has had discussions with Shane Enright the Aviation Secretary of the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) about this issue on 26 March and the ITF will assist the FAAA in relation to this issue if required.
I will be writing to you very shortly about further steps that the FAAA will be undertaking in relation to this issue. The FAAA will also ensure that measures are taken to ensure we have sufficient funds on hand to mount a comprehensive campaign against any announcement by Qantas to further expand overseas bases.