sydney s/h and lowerlobe
sydney s/h- i have never used the word scab.
hawk eye's post about the actions of some of the fixed term contract crew that were employed by Qantas in L/H in 2004, pretty much reflect my view also.
lowerlobe- you actually ask reasonable questions for the first time.... and without an attack on the FAAA. You therefore are entitled to answers in the same spirit.
In regard to o/s based crew numbers EBA 7 stipulates a cap of 870. The FAAA in the Planning and Scheduling committee, gets this information from the Company. Also, Qantas Operations have these details and if Qantas wanted to deceive, it would be quickly uncovered.
The point that needs to be made lowerlobe, is that the cap on O/S bases is no longer "legal" if i can put it that way. WHY?? WELL BECAUSE WORKCHOICES MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANY RESTRICTION TO BE PLACED ON AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO LABOUR HIRE ARRANGEMENTS.
That means, Qantas can hire unlimited people O/S ......... it is only because of other arrangements that this has not already occurred. Constructive engagement with the Company, like the JFK dispensation provides an incentive for the Company not to move in a provocative manner in relation to other issues such as increasing O/S based numbers.
That is why decisions like JFK are made in part.... and it's not always possible to discuss these subtleties in a public manner.
In relation to MAM casuals- approx 400 are currently employed. These crew are at the lowest pay point in the S/H pay structure and are obviously extremely attractive to employ from Qantas' perspective.
What was said by Eden99, for example is exactly correct- there are several groups of cabin crew employed by Qantas, including MAM casuals that a much more attractive to employ as compared to L/H crew.
This is no secret to anyone...... suggestions that this should not be discussed with L/H cabin crew are breathtaking and unbelievable.
How can the FAAA involve the membership in getting their views about what must be done to prevent a close down of the LH Division if we all can't actually confront facts and figures??
Roamingwolf's position on this is quite astounding...but as i indicated before, some individuals are blinkered and cannot be swayed by logical and rational argument.