Guardian1
There are two parts to my response, firstly, the issue of the JFK dispensation and secondly, the performance of the faaa.
I will post the JFK issue here and respond to the latter part at a later date.
Since you obviously are unable to understand the premise of my argument, I’ll keep this simple so you might understand it.
The Faaa and Qantas are asking that we grant dispensation so to save money on accommodation in New York .On the surface this might sound reasonable but if you look at the problem a little closer, their argument is full of holes
1: The slips in LA have increased and in fact one slip has increased to 85 hours, so instead of a 2 , 1 , 1 slip on an old JFK trip you now have at a minimum , 2 nights in LA and then another 2 nights in LA at the end of the JFK transit. So you have both trips with 4 night’s accommodation. With the allowances in New York and LA being almost identical, there is nothing being saved here.
2: Instead of the Tour of Duty being 14.35, the average is actually closer to 16 hours and in a number of cases closer to 17 hours. This means for each crew member, 2 hours at Overtime 1 and at least 2 hours at overtime 2. Basically, at even the most junior FA’s rate of pay a total of 7.5 hours pay which say at a minimum of $30 / hour, a cost of $225.00.
If you look at the hourly rate for the CSM and CSS and other senior crew, a lot more than that.
3: If you assume that the AKL crews are cheaper to use than SYD based crew, then why are the company not using them to do the JFK shuttle? They do not need the faaa’s permission to use them and they would only have to give them one nights slip in LA either side of the shuttle plus no overtime making them a lot cheaper than us. Knowing how Qantas thinks, why don’t they use them? Even if we were stupid enough to grant them dispensation, what is to stop the company from replacing us with the AKL based crew once we have agreed to the dispensation?
I doubt that the cost of one night’s accommodation in New York being more than it is costing the company in extra payments, so why are they doing it?
It does not take a bush lawyer or a rocket scientist to see if this is not about saving money in New York, then the company has another agenda and that it requires us to grant dispensation.
If the company wants dispensation it can only be because it wants something down the line and we are being set up for a fall. I notice that Guardian 1 still has not said why he and the rest of the faaa will not seek independent legal advice and that concerns me as well but it is a huge worry that the company might have a legal argument to alter our rosters at a later date.
The faaa also stated in it’s newsletter dated 23 rd March 2005 that one of the conditions for granting temporary dispensation was that the TOD would be planned up to 14 .35 and it has exceeded that in virtually every case.
What does the faaa have to worry about with legal advice? It is prudent to consider this and to have a postal ballot on this issue not just a show of hands at a union meeting where it is impossible to get a true and democratic vote.
This is not about an uninformed stirrer with no idea of the EBA, it is about commonsense and not just listening to the usual intimidatory threats by the company that if we don’t accept their demands we will be replaced with foreign workers, since I doubt this is about savings in New York, I fear this is about something far more sinister to our conditions than just the JFK shuttle.
I challenge Guardian 1 and the rest of the faaa to publish a newsletter on the JFK issue with their points for the dispensation and my points against the dispensation.If you are interested in a balanced and fair debate on this issue then you will have no problems with this newsletter
Last edited by RedTBar; 1st Sep 2005 at 02:41.