bolto_79
you mentioned
[POINT TO POINT FLYING
As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?
SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL]
firstly, let me state - i understand QF have strenuously denied that a base in LAX is under consideration - but there again, at the last crew forums, so was a BNE longhaul base.....??
So, what would QF have to gain from an LA base?
i) Crew on contracts, not directly employed by QF, so good for the bottom line.
ii) On lower rates of pay, not subjected to the same rest requirements after a long range sector.
iii) Able to do JFK as a shuttle.
iv) Reduced accomodation requirements in LA
v) Increased duty hours per bid period
vi) Flexibility to introduce ORD / DFW shuttles or other services to utilise aircraft sitting on the ground for 12 - 15 hours
Along with LAX, you could argue, why does QF have a need for a crew base in AKl.
There is no cultural requirement (though i'm sure many would argue otherwise)
The AKL based crew don't purely operate point to point sectors, they also operate patterns ex SYD.
As an F/A, i'm proud to work for QF.
The vast majority of people I work with - likewise.
We have a vested interested in ensuring that this company is competitve, viable and secure because all of our futures depend on it.
My biggest concern is that there are a lot of managers out there now, running around trying to justify why they are in their jobs.
One of the easiest targets out there is the crew.
Yes, the world and industry have changed, there are a lot of efficiencies to be gained, however there are ways to do this without the knee jerk reation of opening crew bases left, right and centre.
Maybe it's time for the company, the crew and the FAAA to sit down and work out the best way to approach this because at the moment we have an irresistable force - and an immovable object!!!
Last edited by onQ; 22nd Jul 2004 at 16:19.