Rollz
Southwest staff were amongst the best paid in the industry pre and post 9/11, as Southwest has continually earned a profit since it's inception into major airline status.
True they are a low cost carrier, with attached efficiencies, but so are AO in a different format. The point I was trying to make was that low wages do not necessarily equate to all low cost carriers.
"Regarding full service, I take that back...my mistake. However here are some facts you might be interested in:
The Australian Airlines Product
•Single class, full service leisure carrier.
•Cost savings will be achieved through a simple operating model for the airline including efficiencies with an aircraft fleet made up of one aircraft type, a single class cabin with a greater number of seats available (reducing the cost per seat), reduced cost of in-flight services, labour cost efficiencies and reduced corporate overheads.
•Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have .separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
So in this scenario, we have the planned 'simple operating model' being expanded at AO's insistence to include another aircraft type? And for that, the Cabin Crew should wear the cost associated with it's introduction in lieu of any incremental pay rise?
The point I'm trying to make is that even with the incremental increases and PBS introduction, AO crew would STILL be cheaper than operating Long Haul crew.
Regarding your point re: 9% across the QF spectrum, why are AO so different?
They were a start up airline that has succeeded, not least of which through the efficiencies it's largest employee group has provided. If you review a number of the EBA's in use at QF (Long Haul & Short Haul to name a few) there are Year scales 1 - 9 to reflect years of service at the carrier. The die was cast years ago - effectively, the FAAA has a right to at least question why AO crew are any different. Are their years of service not worth at least an incremental increase, when similar departments have received them in the past?
Not saying that AO are particularly special, but certainly unique in that they are a start up operation within the QF group unlike many other areas and subsidiaries of the airline, and as such their salaries do not necessarily reflect or compensate for years of service. Fact - whether or not you agree with it is your choice.
"Ok so now you are saying the 5-6 day trips in Sabah are inefficient. Well if they get rid of the 5-6 then AO crew will go on strike arguing that you dont get enough rest.
I'am sure they will address the issue that you have raised one day.
5-6 days rest following an approximate 9 hour duty is RIDICULOUS. Sure, it's lovely and special and the AO crew love it, but in reality, unsustainable.
Rest following a duty is very important, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that this be bargained away. What I am saying is that efficiencies through the better utilisation of aircraft in the scheduling can achieve greater savings at no cost to the Crew.
QF Long Haul, by example, complete an approx 15 hour duty SYD-LAX, with one nights rest, then do 15 hours LAX-SYD. I doubt AO, with it's respective rest requirements, is any different (and if so, marginally) in regards to the rest it affords its crew.
5-6 days of crew sitting in a hotel these days is a very costly exercise. Nothing to do with the crew on this one!
"Well I'am sure AO managment is dying to do that also but is probably worried from another dispute arising. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Doesnt slip times, hotels, allowances and transfers make up your work conditions? Any changes in these to reduce costs directly affects your work conditons. I dont think many AO crew will be happy with that decision. Don't you think so?
I'm talking about EXCESSIVE - IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS slip times. I'm not talking about reducing them BELOW those stipulated in the agreement - I'm talking about better utilisation of crew. So long as the conditions within the Agreement are adhered to, no one can complain without justifiable reason to.
Most of what I'm saying is that there are many things that AO control, such as scheduling of aircraft, etc. that have a direct corrolation to their expenditure in areas such as allowances, hotels, etc. If they scheduled the aircraft smarter, allowing the crew to spend the least amount of time away from home as possible in accordance with their agreement, they could achieve a great deal of savings without trying to screw the crew over in negotiations.
In short, I'm upset for the AO crew regarding the 'doom and gloom' picture that is getting spread in the media from management. The efficiencies AO crew provide, even if successful with the push for greater increases in pay,etc., still makes you a cost efficient workforce.
Sadly, it places you in competition with Long Haul. But we saw that one coming ages ago!
And all this at a time of ever increasing Directors and Executive fees, bonuses and other perks! Pigs at the trough anyone?