Pegasus,
Your post lacks it’s usual clarity and in fact I was wondering if you had just come back from a night out.
However in relation to the current topic I agree with you that some who post here are not crew and are in all probability company management or others who’s only intent is to confuse, cause trouble and deflect the course of the topic away from the issue.
I do not believe though that a discussion on pprune will jeopardize any negotiations you…sorry the FAAA will have with the company. We are not talking about any plans or concepts that the FAAA has and in any case anything that you mention at meetings is probably back in the office before the members have left the car park.
I think it is vital that we talk about our next EBA now and not in Nov or Dec and if we use pprune as a method of sharing information it will be of benefit to us. As you said the company does monitor this site and it can only help us if they know we are serious as it makes them react to us for a change instead of the other way around.
The idea of different Bands for example is something that other airlines have used very successfully and if adopted by QF will help both sides. If people looking for jobs are willing to work for MAM or J* conditions then let them join L/H and lets get our flying back. That in turn protects our jobs and is that not what we want after all.
On another subject Qantas is being hurt by all the publicity on it’s fuel surcharges but has not only dropped them by a pathetic 5 cents but only on selected routes as well.
On today’s news a major Australian shoe manufacturer has announced it will move it’s manufacturing to either India or Thailand. They said it was because of the cheaper labour costs in these other countries.
The catch was that when he was asked if the shoes would be cheaper then he said NO. So again we have a case where it is not the competitiveness of the product but the profit that counts and again AUSTRALIAN jobs are going to be lost.
It will be interesting to see if the Gov will do or say anything about this……. WHAT’S YOUR GUESS?
On yet another note the tech crew union believes that a 24 hour slip in JFK is not enough to achieve a decent rest.....
Quote "AIPA’s considered position is to have the layover lengthened to increase the probability for you to ascertain sound sustainable rest. AIPA’s intermediate position is also clear, in that we believe that a Second Officer should be added to these arduous Flight Patterns if the rest is kept at a minimum 24 hours in JFK, due again to reported concerns over incomplete sleep in the slip, tiredness and possible fatigue whilst at work."......
I wonder how rested they would feel if they were to transit JFK instead of a 24 hour slip.They don't know how lucky they have it and our union wanted us to give it away.
Last edited by lowerlobe; 16th January 2007 at 20:57.