MORE INFO ON WHY WE ARE NOT FEATURE ON SKYTRAX
Argus , I have been away but let me explain my logic.
You refer to skytrax and here are the reasons why we are no longer up there.
1) de-crewing we have smaller numbers of cabin crew on most aircrafts then our competitors. We have a ratio of 1cabin crew to 53 passenger in economy. Australian airlines has 1:34. and most of our Asian competitors have similar or less ratios then Australians. Most Asian and middle east carriers earn the same but pay a lot less tax and receive big bonuses or perks (like free housing,etc) .
2) our hard product the entertainment system is average and has a lot of problems. The reason is GD did not want to spend the money on something up to date. We ended up with the same system as BA (as we share the same entertainment engineers at most ports) which has the same problems. Singapore, Cathay,
Emirates have on-demand with up to 500 movies. To update now would cost A$ 600 million
3) Food is an entire chapter , sorry novel in itself. Ask any economy or frequent flyer.
4) Moral, it seems to me that every 2 years now we have to go through major grandstanding when it is EBA time, which as an very BIG effect on moral. Given the HUGE increases GD and his mates get (every time)it is fair to say a few crumbles are expected downline.
5) Travel allowances are based on public sector rates and are a substantial part of our very complicated pay structure.
6) By setting up another base with cheaper crew but more expensive support staff it is unlikely they safe that much money. Don’t forget initial and ongoing training costs, support staff etc. it is purely a union busting exercise. Bangkok and new Zealand crews fly in for the 6 monthly training and exams (it also costs allowances and hotel costs)
7) Our domestic colleagues who again backstab longhaul crew get their allowances paid into their salaries.
8) Since Lesley grant (group general manager customer or as I would say cover up service) and mark hassell (GM) turned up there is no longer any trust given they ongoing lies they keep telling us.
9) Finally we are going down the same path as air new Zealand did under Lesley grants stewardship so if you are passionate about your job IT IS A MUST TO FIGHT THEM.
10) Its not just cabin crew but also the ASU, Engineers ,Pilots who have great difficulty at the moment with their EBA’s and management.
MARCH2MALE HAS PUT IT IN SIMILAR FASHION.SPOT ON
as i keep saying treat this excercise as a business case and take the emotions out of it .
The turnout for most meetings organized by the faaa is usually small. Having close to a thousand people turn up and voting is a very substantial step forward. For those who have been away or decided to go for lunch or else they also had a change to have there voice heard. Just a little reminder that in today’s world we have emails, fax, phones, pagers etc. to communicate. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world or for lunch if you want to be heard or have your SAY get “OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT”.
So puccidreaming and galleygossip , guys grow up stop whining you are supposed to be adults.
Pay dispute in the wings for Qantas
By Paul Robinson
Workplace Editor
The Age, 5th October, 2004
Qantas shareholders have been urged by a leading institutional investment adviser to reject the company\'s plan to lift directors\' fees by more than 66 per cent.
The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors yesterday advised its 32 industry and public sector fund clients to vote against the proposal at the company\'s annual meeting in Brisbane on October 21.
ACSI, which has also been a vocal opponent of News Corporation\'s proposed reincorporation in the US state of Delaware, has conducted detailed research on the Qantas proposal and believes it is excessive and not in line with market trends.
Its executive officer, Phillip Spathis, said client funds controlled more than $85 billion of investment and were significant players on the Australian investment scene.
Mr Spathis said the plan would boost Qantas\'s wage bill for directors from $1.5 million to $2.5 million, which he said was "excessive". He said the company\'s justification, that the increase was needed to attract high-calibre directors and was in line with market conditions, was "hard to sustain".
Research by ACSI showed the total remuneration of Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson to be $484,000 last financial year. It showed the mean remuneration of a non-executive chairman of an ASX top 100 company was $308,000, and the median was $285,000. Mr Spathis said Qantas paid much more than other top 100 companies: "We cannot really support the magnitude of the fees that Qantas is seeking. In the past we have approved increases in excess of 30 per cent because companies were seeking new directors, or were expanding the number of directors in the pool. But it is not clear that Qantas wants to expand the pool."
A spokesman for Qantas said yesterday that the company had decided to plan ahead by providing an increase in directors\' fees that would apply over the next two or three years. This would prevent the need to go to shareholders each year for approval.
The spokesman said the proposal, which was set out in detail for shareholders, would also require directors to perform at a higher level on a range of new committees: "We think this is a reasonable proposal that will be well received by shareholders."
ACSI\'s decision comes as Qantas is embroiled in an industrial struggle with two in-house unions that are demanding pay rises of 12 per cent over the next two years.
Flight Attendants Association of Australia secretary Michael Mijatov has warned of industrial action after the current agreement expires in December, which could destabilise airline travel over the summer. In response Qantas has begun training new flight attendants, whom the union has labelled strike-breakers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------