Qantas Warned Of Heathrow Union Battle.

[lame]

Qantas warned of Heathrow union battle


Qantas could face widespread industrial action at Heathrow Airport if it pushes ahead with plans to base more of its 35,000-strong workforce overseas without the support of Australian unions, the London-based International Transport Workers Federation warned yesterday.

Amid revelations of Qantas cost-cutting plans to base 25 per cent of international flight attendants overseas, the federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, said Qantas could face an industrial campaign of the same magnitude as action that crippled British Airways in July 1997.

The Flight Attendants Association of Australia has already warned cabin crew will strike in December if Qantas pushes to break the existing cap of 370 overseas flight crew based in Auckland and Bangkok.

Internal documents obtained by the Herald this week reveal plans to set up a London crew base with 400 flight attendants, and build offshore crew numbers to about 840.

"We will do everything that we can to support them [the Australian union]," Mr Enright said.

British Airways lost tens of millions of pounds during its 1997 dispute with flight attendants. The International Transport Workers Federation helped co-ordinate a widespread picketing and publicity campaign against the airline.

"Qantas needs to understand that the problem doesn't come on the day the dispute starts. The problem comes when the public is aware there is going to be a dispute," Mr Enright said.

But he was not against the plans as long as Qantas had the approval of Australian unions. United Airlines had set up an 800-strong crew base at Heathrow in 1991, he noted.

Air New Zealand approached the international union before setting up its crew base at Heathrow five years ago.

The head of Air New Zealand's international division, Ed Sims, conceded wages were much higher in Britain but said hotel bills had been cut.

"Having crew domiciled in London makes good sense financially. And from a customer service perspective having British crew is not a bad thing when 70 per cent of the customers you fly from Heathrow are British," Mr Sims said.

Air New Zealand's Heathrow-based crews fly to Los Angeles, where they hand over to Auckland-based crews.

The Australian union says the average Qantas flight attendant is rested for three days in Singapore or Bangkok and two days in London on a 52-hour return trip to London.

The head of the US-based Association of Flight Attendants at Heathrow, Kevin Creighan, suspects the Qantas plan is aimed not only at reducing costs but also at weakening the union base in Australia. "Hiring 400 people on temporary non-unionised agreements is just a way to get rid of unionised staff in Sydney," said Mr Creighan, who relocated to Britain as a United Airlines flight attendant in 1991.

"They don't care if people have 15 years' experience or 15 minutes' experience. All they care about is getting staff on board with half the costs."

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Who do these Flt Attendant Union types think they are????

Do you honestly expected an offshore union to support such a ridiculous notion if staff are going to be based in London?
Putting money into the British economy and giving people a job seems something that the poms would not really want to strike over.

Sounds like unionistic crap and rhetoric to me.
How can these FAAA idiots actually be taken seriously if they tout this rubbish???

[Feather #3]

Operated throught LHR often have you, BCD ?:confused:

G'day ;)

[Left2primary]

BCD,

so you are saying that you support QF's move to hire 1000 FA's offshore for no other reason than to boost the bottom line of what is already the worlds most profitable airline?

Or is your post just another one of your tragic anti FA rantings?

L2P

[Beer Can Dreaming]

L2P - my answer is yes.

Having flown QF continually for the last 22 years amongst others I have been able to make comparisons.

Airlines have a very slim operating margin and QF is under intense and serious competition globally.

Firstly some F/A's would have the opportunity of being based in places such as London and I believe many would take up the opportunity which you seem keen to deny them.
I imagine you will just go spare not being able to shop at Harrod's quite so often!

Secondly having crew based internationally works well for other airlines.
Emirates has crews from all over the world, CX/ANA/SQ/Gulf Air and BA just to name a few.

Flew ANA recently from London to Tokyo Narita with a large mix of European and Japanese girls.
They love their job and it really showed - even after an 11 hour flight.

It certainly beats the last time I flew QF internationally and sat within earshot of 2 F/A's whinging incessantly about QF whilst strapped in for take-off/landing.
Bloody unprofessional as well as an embarassment.

I have 2 letters from both John Borghetti and Geoff Dixon apologising profusely for this indiscretion.
Unfortunately its not the only occurrence.

At the other end of the spectrum the domestic QF crew seem hard working, friendlier and more efficient.
Haven't heard them gripe so far but seeing them smile and laugh is a really big plus.

The world around us is changing and fortunately your CEO sees that and is willing to make change - unlike yourself or your union.

What does it take to make you realise that passengers dont give a tinkers-cuss where the F/A 's are from, but if they get good service and are able to communicate then they walk away happy, will fly with you again and you get to keep your job.

Hell knows, the company may even be profitable again and can expand to the advantage of everyone!!!

[halas]

"...Already the worlds most profitable airline"

Hmmmmmmm:confused:

halas

[GalleyHag]

BCD

I always wondered what our CEO does all day now I know, he writes letters apologising for a couple of flight attendants talking and in ear shot of a passenger no less, that’s value for the millions he is paid each year. So sorry you were put through such an ordeal BCD.

It is clear you know very little about QF Flight Attendants or the repercussions of overseas based crew on Australian based crew and future QF Flight Attendants.

Emirates and other Middle Eastern airlines do have multinational crew and so does QF maybe not to the extent of Emirates though. However all are based in the Middle East and are employed by their respective airlines and all are paid the same unlike QF who employ overseas based crew through a labour hire company at lower rates of pay to the detriment of Australian based crew.

It’s sad that just because you have had bad experiences with QF that you would like to see 1000 jobs go overseas.

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Galley Hag.

Perhaps you would prefer my company take its contract worth approx. $11m anually to someone else?
Perhaps VB domestically and CX/SQ for International Services???
Would that suit you?
Thank goodness your top echelon of management appreciate our business and have replied personally.
You should be so glad Galley Hag because he kept a few of you in work.
It came pretty close to having your contract terminated at its expiration but intervention by those that care (including those two names mentioned) prevented this.
Thank them personally one day because according to yourself they obviously have better things to do with their time.

You carry on as if your fellow F/A compatriots complaining about your company within earshot of pax is either the norm or is justified GH.
Well I'll tell you it is not.
It denigrates the level of professionalism some of your co-workers wish to promote and have worked hard at doing.
If you wish to know I wrote the letter after the second occurrence.
People like this are a threat to everyone including yourself Frauline Hag.
In most organisations it would be treated like a cancer and cut out before it spreads.
You obviously think otherwise.

In my opinion give the jobs to someone more deserving and willing to work harder than some young (<50 yo in the case of QF) thing that carries on as if the world revolves around themselves whilst giving mediocre service.

Its about time your union looked at promoting excellence rather than supporting mediocrity.
Yes I understand the union has to look after all of its members, even the lowest common denominator I talk about here.

No - Qantas is not the most profitable airline in the world by far but what does amaze me is that it has gotten on for so long with the level of service provided by some - not most I trust.

Galley Hag - your response above only justifies the fact that you are not deserving of the conditions and priviledges your job provides, but I know many others that are.

[fartsock]

BCD,

This forum is for professional pilots and other crew members.

You are obviously neither

I suggest you pi$$ off this forum as your opinions are not of interest to those of us who are long term comitted professionals to the industry.

FS

[Shitsu-Tonka]

BCD,

best speak of things you understand.

on that basis this thread disqualifies you.

( " I believe" - ,uh oh.....:rolleyes:, flags up )

[Left2primary]

BCD and Hallas,

For you and other pedants QF may not be THE most profitable airline worldwide however few would be in better shape financially.

The following was a quote from gd made around 12 of May 04-

" Qantas [is] on track for a record net profit of $600 million to $650 million for this financial year, and $700 million next year".

The following quote is from a channel news asia article posted today-

"Qantas is one of the world's most profitable airlines after posting a record interim profit of 283 million US dollars in February."

I fail to see how anybody of right mind could justify the loss of so many potential jobs [1000] for the sake of pure corporate greed.

L2P

BTW BCD, have you been taking your medication?

[SydGirl]

BCD,

Although I agree that the two FAs you mentioned behaved unprofessionally in discussing their disdain for the company within earshot of passengers, there is no need to tar all QF FAs with the same proverbial brush.

Like every airline anywhere in the world, there are good eggs and bad eggs. It is unfortunate that you encountered two that clearly did not think before they spoke.

It is also unfortunate that you have such disgust for the FAAA. Like all unions, it does it's best to protect it's members. As long as it's members are abiding by the Agreement between the company and union, then not much can be done. If morale is bad at QF then that can hardly be the fault of the FAAA.

Perhaps QF's looming threat of moving more work offshore and in turn reducing Australian employment is the final blow to many FA's in QF. This could quite possibly be part of the reason you are experiencing such 'mediocre' service - maybe they just don't care anymore?

SG
:D

[ftrplt]

I suggest you pi$$ off this forum as your opinions are not of interest to those of us who are long term comitted professionals to the industry.

Yeah good one FS, bite the hand that feeds you.

I would have though 'long term comitted (sic) professionals' would be interested in the views of their passengers - especially those with big accounts. And if they werent, they wouldnt make it bleedingly obvious.

[halas]

Wow L2P, who's the pedant now?

Got any more usefull propoganda to spill here?

No wonder they want to out source quality staff away from the miserable tribe you come from.

halas

[Z Force]

Just maybe the attitude of some of the flight attendants has something to do with this idea. As I have said before, how do you justify paying someone up to around $100,000 as a head flight attendant (with the average being $70,000 for a flight attendant)? Perhaps the FAAA has started to price its members out of jobs.

[Argus]

I'm with you.

I see some of the usual suspects are attempting to defend the indefensible on QF flight service.

I will not fly with QANTAS, especially on long haul routes.

It's not because of the flight deck crew (some of whom are my former colleagues) or engineering staff. It's because the standard of QF cabin service is way below what the competition offers.

I work for myself. I stand or fall on the quality of service I provide for my clients, most of whom are satisfied with what I do. If they aren't, I lose their business.

When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe, I expect to receive in flight service that represents value for my hard earned money. Unfortunately, when compared to the likes of Cathy, Lauda (Austrian), JAL, Air Canada and even BA, QANTAS doesn't get to first base.

I don't expect forelock tugging servitude from cabin staff. But I do expect basic manners, a customer focussed approach to reasonable requests and flight attendant availability throughout the flight/sector. In my experience, QANTAS fails on all three counts. Rather than getting on with the job and maintaining the revenue flow, the Australian based cabin crew are more interested in preserving the Public Service attitude of "rights", "entitlements" and "hard won" employment conditions.

Qantas was ranked fourth in the 2004 Skytrax Airline of the Year survey. But the survey methodology goes to much more than cabin service.

Skytrax also surveys cabin service as a specific item. According to the Skytrax web site, the cabin service survey criteria are:

*Service Efficiency;
*Staff Cabin Presence;
*Service Attentiveness;
*Staff Friendliness;
*Consistency among Staff; and
*Sincerity and Attitude of Staff

The Skytrax 2004 survey results for cabin staff are due this month. However, in 2003, Qantas failed to make the Global Cabin Service Top 10 - see http://www.airlinequality.com/main/vote_staff_1-04.htm

There's no such thing as a job for life any more. For those QF cabin staff who feel disgruntled and allow their feelings to affect their performance, I suggest you look for something else. When you find that the grass over yonder isn't greener and is filled with dog turds, you'll then realise what you had wasn't all that bad after all.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

How hilarious their cries of poor me are :{

I look forward to watching the unionists having their butt kicked right across the 6 o'clock news. Bring it on.

Years and years of greed; and now it's time for their come-uppance.

The public will not support you.


:D

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Wow !!!

L2P and Galley Hag, what can I say???
The way you both carry on only strengthens my resolve to think twice about flying QF in the future.
You both deserve each other.

Why dont you both take a leaf out of Syd Girls posting.
She addressed the problem I described with commonsense and rational discussion rather than the adversarial diatribe and inability to debate that you both (L2P and GH)keenly display.

Ftrplt and Argus - thank you both.
When will these guys like L2P and GH realise it is us that pay their wages and that the companies prosperity depends upon people like us that give them our patronage.
The way they carry on they dont deserve the jobs they have.

Is it true F/A's make upwards of over $70,000 pa???
Sounds like they are well and truly spoiled if thats the case.
Possibly the reason they are so bitter and toxic is that they know they would not be able to survive in the real world unless they have other qualifications if they ever lost their jobs.

Fartsock and ****su-Tonka.
Your parochial opinions show you both to be totally unprofessional - especially if you can't/wont accept objective criticism from others that are in a unique position to both observe the level of service and possibly affect your careers by taking our business elsewhere.
As stated earlier, if you cant keep hold of the pax that pay your wages then your company is in for a hard time and possibly at your expense.
Listen and learn Fartsock and ****su Tonka as you just may learn something in your life.

The truth may hurt people but a responsible professional would take note of whats mentioned and act on it accordingly - rather than attack for expressing the opinion that in these cases your service those times really sucked and maybe the jobs should go to those willing to do the right thing by QF, unlike yourselves.

By the way, I do know for a fact that this site is read by many throughout your company on a daily basis.

[Left2primary]

Amusing to see that the hysterical anti- Qf longhaul FA brigade have hijacked this thread.

BCD,

The original thread relates to the FAAA efforts to prevent 1000 jobs being exported overseas not, " my huge [11 million dollar] ego wasnt stroked long or hard enough for my liking so I wont fly QF again".


JBM,

I think you will find that the FAAA will garner its share of public support because their judgement on the issue of exporting jobs overseas, is not twisted by its hatred of the FA [QF longhaul only?] community. Unlike yourself.

May I repectfully suggest to those dedicated QF FA bashers that you start your own thread on those matters that mean so much to you, so that those with an interest in maintaining jobs here in Australia may debate without being hijacked.

L2P

[Argus]

May I repectfully suggest to those dedicated QF FA bashers that you start your own thread on those matters that mean so much to you, so that those with an interest in maintaining jobs here in Australia may debate without being hijacked.


Hijack vt seize control of means of transport by threat of violence: Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, p.503.

L2P

I'm truly sorry that honest criticism of QF cabin service based on personal experience offends you. However, with great respect, it's stretching a long bow to assert that robust expositions of passenger dissatisfaction amount to a threat of violence.

Have another go, son!

As an Australian, I'd much prefer to see jobs remain here if at all possible. However, I don't see that as a blank cheque for unions to argue that the forces of competition don't apply to QF flight attendants.

I'm not normally into 'just the cut and paste' routine, but I commend to you last Saturday's editorial from the 'Sydney Morning Herald'.

QANTAS JOINS JOBS FLIGHT

The Qantas chief executive, Geoff Dixon, notes a "knee-jerk reaction" each time a company suggests the shift of Australian jobs overseas. To him, it is all a question of hard-nosed common sense. In the era of globalisation, where regulatory boundaries are increasingly irrelevant, companies meet rivals on competitive costs or they perish. The tough arithmetic for locating overseas 840 Qantas cabin crew - a quarter of the airline's international total - is a lot more compelling than Mr Dixon was forthcoming until a leaked internal document exposed Qantas's intentions. Now the plan is out, negotiations should proceed with greater frankness.

Mr Dixon says Qantas needs to put more workers offshore to increase efficiency and profitability so that the airline can compete more strongly internationally and expand job opportunities in Australia. That might sound self-contradictory. Consider, however, the crew logistics of the longest haul. Flight attendants leaving Sydney rest in a stopover, Singapore or Bangkok, for 24 hours before flying on to London where they spend three or four days in rest. The return flight involves a 48-hour stopover. By the time they return to Sydney, they will have spent 52 hours in flight for their nine days away.

The location of cabin crew in London might not save much on wages but would put a big dent in Qantas's crew accommodation costs. Naturally, Qantas also sees value - $20 million a year worth - in replacing 400 Australians with cheaper overseas workers.

There are threads, however, not necessarily immediately apparent to a company accountant's eye. Australian workers fear displacement for reasons of individual economic stress, and the community worries whether some modern paradox of wealth equates affluence inversely with job security. The wealthier a nation gets, it sometimes seems, the less able it is to retain the means of wealth for its people. The jobs export in footwear, clothing and textiles to low-cost locations over the past two or three decades, and of call centre jobs more recently, is indicative.

Qantas has a special, symbolic place in Australian life. If any changes such as those Mr Dixon now rightly proposes become inevitable in these tough times they must be made very carefully. Mr Dixon wants to soften up the unions ahead of a December renegotiation of job rules. His remarks should not be lightly dismissed as bluff and bravado. Too many international airlines have collapsed because they failed to adapt to competition, a result that serves neither shareholder nor worker.

[Kaptin M]

It's mighty unfair of you, B C D, to attack all QF F/A's on the basis of what you overheard (albeit perhaps in raised voices, projected aft) between a couple of them having a whinge.

Having worked in Asia (contiuously) for the past 13 years, I can assure you, absolutely, that those smiles you see on the Asian girls' faces do not necessarily indicate that they feel any better toward their company than that of the 2 you felt compelled to report.
Having worked with both, as an overall assessment, I would FAR prefer to have a QF cabin crew in charge of pax in an emergency, than those whom you hold as the shining light.

What Dixon does NOT comprehend, is that although Asian airlines remunerate their cabin staff individually at a lesser level than (say) QF, BA, and numerous American carriers - they make up for it by employing FAR MORE cabin crew per aircraft.

In other words, the workload is divided by a (much) greater number on Asian carriers than it is on QF.

But Dixon wants the best of BOTH worlds........fewer crew AND lower salaries.
Anyone who has worked (anywhere) in Asia will confirm my assertaions - Asia is ALL about keeping wages down - but it's also all about employing as many as possible!

So, moving right along.
What happens when jobs are EXported overseas?
Well, in most cases the people working overseas will NOT be bringing anything BACK to Australia, when they return.
But of course the Geoff Dixons will have made their multi-million dollar fortunes by then, and akin to most other "smart" businessmen aka Christopher Skase, and Rupert Murdoch, will undoubtedly have set themselves up in various tax avoidance/evading scheme companies to protect their wealth gained on the backs of their former employees!
They won't be footing the medical bills.
Nor the unemployment bills. These are going to be passed on to future generations.
That will be left to the minimal workforce employed in Australia, whilst the majority is shipped o/s to give shareholders a 10-20% return on their investments, and the Geoffs an EXTRA couple of million $$$'s per[i] year!

Good one Geoff - [i]Go, Aussie, go!

[Left2primary]

Argus,

not ANOTHER pedant? And a disingenuous one too!

"Amusing to see that the hysterical anti- Qf longhaul FA brigade have hijacked this thread."

FYI hijack also means to oppropriate, divert, commandeer and seize which of course is what has been done to this thread by you and others in an effort to push your own particular barrow.

Quite common really in these forums, especially with the obsessive and fixated, amongst us.

L2P
-------------------------------------------------------------

I did some quick [simple] calculations on the monetary cost to Australia and its economy of losing 1000 FA jobs overseas.

"If" a long haul FA's taxable income is on average $50 000 they might expect to pay $20 000 or so in income tax.
That equates to a loss of $20 million dollars in revenue for the federal government P.A.

Also, how many jobs are created I wonder by having most of the balance [$30 million P.A.] returned back into our economy through the purchase of various goods and services?

I dont know, but I'm sure its plenty.

The opportunity cost of QF succeeding in its plans?

It would save QF $20 million dollars a year which, when they are predicting an [EBIT] profit next year of $1 billion AUD is peanuts.

For those who cant see past their own self interest, dont for a moment think that your QF airfare will get any cheaper.

The only monetary benefit will be to gd and his executives via more performance bonuses with the big loser, the Australian ecomony and Australian workers.

NONE of the income generated by those 1000 offshore jobs will benefit OUR economy in ANY meaningful way.

Oh, if it makes our friends any happier you are right. I wouldnt get to Harrods anymore but FYI I personally prefer Selfridges but of course for those amongst us able to reason a little more objectively, the issues at hand are just a little bigger than that.

L2P

[Argus]

FYI hijack also means to oppropriate, divert, commandeer and seize which of course is what has been done to this thread by you and others in an effort to push your own particular barrow.


Not really old son. All I've done is to put a point of view that doesn't accord with your view of the world. You ask for debate yet you won't tolerate any other view than yours on this thread. Instead, you resort to personal abuse and name calling when some one has the audacity to challenge some sacred cows in the QF FA world.

And you are not seriously suggesting that even in the unlikely event that 1000 jobs were to be lost, that all 1000 people would become permanently unemployed with an ongoing loss to the revenue- or are you? I respectfully suggest that any who may be retrenched would find alternative employment (perhaps not to their liking) that would enable them to both pay tax and contribute to their local economy. It's called 'life in the real world'.



Cap M

You say:I would FAR prefer to have a QF cabin crew in charge of pax in an emergency, than those whom you hold as the shining light.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that it's only anglo-celt or bronzed ANZAC crews that have a monoploy on assertiveness and an ability to take charge in an emergency?

[Left2primary]

Argus,

no I am not suggesting QF are contemplating redundancies of any kind because to do so would rightly cause community outrage given the financial position QF it is in.

However, the net effect to our economy of basing those jobs offshore remains the same.

The only differences are that QF avoids causing those "human costs" normally associated with large numbers of redundancies or company failures.

You know the ones [real world?], poverty, divorce, depression, drug abuse and worse.

L2P

[Wirraway]

Well, having just returned last week from Manila
on QF20, it is with sadness that the cabin service has
fallen since the last time several years ago I travelled
on Qantas, on both QF19 outbound and QF20 inbound
no coffee refills were offered after the meal was served
and I only was able to secure one beer each way, I don't
know if this is a new policy or not, but overall both sectors
were very dissapointing as far as cabin service was concerned.

Unfortunatly QF is the only airline that flys direct BNE-MNL-BNE
once a week.

Wirraway

[GalleyHag]

BCD

I have to wonder why you havent taken your business somewhere else, if I had an $11m account with a company and they were as bad as you portray I wouldnt be sticking around nor would my money. Is it because you dont have an $11m account or the service is not quite as bad as you would like everyone to think?

I can assure you it was the top echelon's staff that would have replied to your letter. GD has better things to do with his day than read letters from customers compalining about a couple of f/a's talking. He actually has a whole department that deals with such letters and of course YOU would be a Chairman's Lounge member so you have your own little department that would look after you, not to mention your account manager. I can tell you $11m is a small size corporate account.

Far enough cabin crew should not really bag the company in ear shot of customers. But what world are you living in "a cancer" please give me a break, do my job for half a day and you would realise that the cancer you talk about is in every major company within Australia from senior managers down.

Here we go the age thing is that all you have left, scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Yes I have been wondering about that as well, how does QF do so well when the service is as bad as you say. Its not like we are the only international airline flying out of Australia in fact our international route network is not as good as some other carriers, as you say the service is a lot better on CX, SQ etc but our flights are full and we are expanding plus people have the option of flying the wonderful VB domestically but still choose QF why? Does that mean you are in the minority?

You wouldnt be talking about yourself would you BCD when you say you know others that are more deserving of my job than me? Its all coming together now, keep dreaming into your beer can as thats as close you will ever get to my job!!

[stickwithit]

BCD,

Are you English? Because I'm as sure as hell that noone would sit and whinge and make idle threats like that just to try and puff up your insecure little ego. If Qantas service is so bad why don't you move to another airline that has 19 staff on a jumbo (like SQ) instead of the 14 QF has )another GD idea), then you might be getting somewhere... Although taking off into concrete trucks, or writing off 747s in Auckland become a problem then. I'm sure Korean make a nice coffee and would smile for you??? Or you'd have nothing to whinge about then would you.. Maybe the staff in QF are whinging (just like you seem to be) for legitimate reasons.. or do you think that they are some superbreed of human that complain and whinge and are selfish as soon as they start in Qantas.. they are normal people after all.

Argus, you done 52 hours of flying in 9 days???.. thats 20 hrs worth of time zones... that doesn't include transport time etc etc, how many hours do you work in a week anyway Argus?? Not as easy as it sounds...

BTW I'm not a FA, but I think you uneducated people hiding behind false little names and bullsh~t little stories need to look at yourselves before you wish 1000 Australian jobs overseas...

GD and his team need to realise that you can't treat people like crap and expect them to be nice to the poeple all day every day.... Although most of them are... Cheers

[halas]

With the extra slots into EGLL, wouldn't QF be creating jobs OS rather than exporting jobs?

l suspect that no-one will be made redundant in any department as a result of this episode.

How many hundreds if not thousands do QF have employed OS any how? Most of those jobs were likely created for the continued safe operation of what is a profitable airline. Do these people not contribute to your continued status of being in a secure job with good pay? How many Ozzies are amoungst that group?

It's not as bad as you make out, besides look on the bright side, less time away from home on the soon-to-be-lost London flights

And whats with all the obscure words anyway?

Signed the disingenuous pedant

AKA halas

[Argus]

Stickwithit


BTW I'm not a FA, but I think you uneducated people hiding behind false little names and bullsh~t little stories need to look at yourselves before you wish 1000 Australian jobs overseas...


Nice try - but your own personal profile is hardly expansive, either. People who live in glass houses?

I don't think any poster on this thread would willingly wish '1000 Australian jobs overseas', certainly not me. But that doesn't alter the fact that many people are dissatisfied with the standard of cabin service that Qantas provides. It's that dissatisfaction that's being expressed here. You appear to be saying that expressing such a view will lead to 1000 jobs being lost. With great respect, there's a link or two missing in your logic.

Dissatisfaction with QF cabin service is not the prerogative of those of us who have said so here. Skytrax also publishes passenger opinions here (http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/qantas_2.htm) If you read through the 40 odd posts placed over the last six months, you'll note that the unfavourable comments outnumber the positives by more than 2:1.

What I'd much prefer to see is a demonstrated improvement in QF cabin service. If this eventuated, I'd willingly return. But on current performance, I'm not prepared to risk $5000 on a long haul business class fare only to be again disappointed.

And BTW, as a small businessperson and employer, I work around 60 hours per week, including weekends - some 50 hours attending to clients (not all face to face) and the balance being a boss and tax collector. If I had a client that was worth $11m per annum (I wish), I'd be making every effort to retain his business!

[DirectAnywhere]

I must admit, one of my continual disappointments is hearing the groan from the FAs on the bus when they hear we've got a full aeroplane. This attitude seems indicative of some of the problems causing some of the posts on this topic.

At the end of the day, these are the people that pay our salaries and the more we can have of them the better!! Customers are not an irrelevance, and I'm sure some of them are bloody hard work, but that said, if people don't like working in the service industry - and it appears a lot don't - take the other option!

[bombshell]

Unfortunately when looking from the outside, a few bad apples quite often gives the impression that the whole barrel is rotten.

What should be of concern here is that Ozzie jobs are being exported. A few pilots with Jet Connect, a large number (proposed) of flight attendants now, what next.........perhaps the whole Airline will be manned by cheap labour from Asia and Africa. (except for the board!)

The Airline's morale is pretty much at rock bottom and the only concern that GD has is how to increase profit!

[Argus]

If we dwell a pause of two marching paces, the real issue here is the age old competing interest of capital and labour.

QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.

One the other side are the unions. Their role is to protect and, if possible enhance the employment conditions of their members. Some award conditions stretch back to the Public Service era. In the eyes of management, these are troublesome and should be removed.

QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. But to achieve its commercial objective, it can either conclude individual agreements with each FA or reach some form of accommodation with the union. In this case, it's probably the latter although doubtless QANTAS would wish for the former if at all possible.

QANTAS has fired a first salvo. The union response is predictable enough - no way. It's like ballroom dancing - each side knows the steps. So negotiations start. Each side has some ambit in its various claims. Over a period of time there will be some posturing from both sides before an agreement is reached. Each side has something to lose and something to gain. Skilled negotiators on both sides will probe and push until a compromise is reached. All industrial disputes are settled eventually - the amount of time in dispute being directly proportional to the hairy chestedness of the protagonists.

That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. My own views are on this thread. Others have pointed out that without passengers, there’s no revenue. It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on terms under which such staff might retrain and move on. The Commonwealth Public Service had a term for this process - enlivenment. Who knows, there might even be the prospect of a 'win win' - disenchanted staff become redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some assistance from QANTAS; any consequential vacancies are filled by enthousiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; Argus and other ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure and dividends to shareholders increase.

Rarely is such advice provided gratis!

[Buster Hyman]

Although taking off into concrete trucks, or writing off 747s in Auckland become a problem then.
That's a bit of a low blow. You don't do your argument any favours with it.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

Every time I open the news or turn on the radio, I am hearing something new from JD about this issue. He is selling it to the public and getting lots of air time.

It is a snowball gaining speed and size and will flatten all attempts you make to stop it. I absolutely agree with a previous poster that the FAAA (read the collective of QF longhaul FA's) has priced their members out of a job.

Maybe you as a union member should go to the FAAA and ask why are you in this position, what has the FAAA done in the past 20 years to ensure they grow with QF together, particularly in the areas of efficiency gains and world's best practise? Ask the union were all the short term wins over the years really worth it now you face this looming long term reality? Were all those "don't do this and don't do that" notices from the FAAA appropriate now that you face the very real danger of losing your jobs? The union represents you, yet sitting on the outside I see you all being blindly led to slaughter.

Whilst I mentioned before that the public will not support you, I also forgot to mention the the union movement most likely won't as well.

Bring on the revolution!

[Left2primary]

jbm,

its actually gd.

You nothing of what you speak.

gd may be doing his best by having his paid shock jocks Alan Jones and John Laws spruik the benefits to QF, but at the end of the day the issues at hand are the prospect of 1000 jobs being exported overseas.

I wouldnt if I were you, predict the opinion of the general public based on your own predudices.

The public are not as bitter and twisted as you.

L2P

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Stickwithit, L2P and GalleyHag.

With that sort of attitude you each display in criticising my ego or personality without knowing myself, or being peeved at the fact that I can solicit a personal response from your CEO makes me think you are each being bloody minded and unwilling to accept the facts.
Your service recently has gone down hill and you dont want to accept it.
I complain about a few instances of unprofessional behaviour amongst your ranks and you three get all hot and bothered about both my opinion as well as the truth.
You question my motives and complain about my personality without having met or confronted myself.

My organisation spends alot of time in the air with QF and having grown up with your CEO in country NSW means when a question is asked it is addressed personally.
The fact that he is able to do this is testimony to the man and his wish to want to keep business with his company - business which you each benefit from.
When the contract is due for renewal we will think carefully about the choice we make.
The rantings of GH,L2P and Stickwithit dont help yourselves or your fellow workers who hopefully are still able to retain a "service attitude".

No people, I dont expect to be pampered but expect a level of service commensurate with the class of ticket and level of service both expected and provided by not only QF itself, but your fellow airlines.

No - I dont want to see jobs go offshore but if it means that by doing so Australians can keep their jobs here then I'm sure even your union will accept this.
After all, was it not your union that approved offshore contract workers from Thailand some years back??

Going to London via Bangok has been a pleasure upstairs being served by these guys and young girls.
My point is that although the thought at the moment is both distasteful and unappealing, sooner or later this will become a reality.

Mr Dixon has not only a responsibility to the employees but also to the share holders by growing the business that Qantas has become.
Your CEO has demonstrated his shrewd ability to both run and expand the airline over the most perilous periods of aviation history in modern times in Australia.
His counterparts havent faired so well and many are on the scrap heap as we speak (Air Canada close to going under as an one of many examples).
Other US airlines are in serious trouble still - and 9/11 was only partly responsible.
European airlines such as Alitalia and Olympic have their serious woes also.

I believe that in the near future your unions will see this also as they not only opened the door for this to happen, but know the cost of industrial action and its devestating effects on all other QS staff.
To strike accordingly would give alot of ammo for more contract workers.

If there was another way to employ more Australians as well as expand the airline to the best of its potential then I'm sure this avenue would have been addressed.

Lets sit on our hands and see what happens.

[Z Force]

Extremely well put BCD.

[Tunguska]

Here here Beer Can D.

I know of a few ex Ansett Cabin Managers as well as line F/A's that really know how hard it is making a living in the real world.

Having only a First Aid certificate makes it hard to compete out there.
Others that were nurses as well as school teachers (with university degrees) have to work literally twice as hard for much less pay.

Left 2 Primary and Galleyhag should take heed.
The world is really a big place and the competition extreme.
Not joyful words when your union is pricing themselves into oblivion.

[TIMMEEEE]

Got to agree with the last 3 postings people.

Tunguska has made a very good point of comparing F/A salaries to those professionals with university qualifications.
Have to say I agree also that the FAAA have all but priced themselves out of the market when you compare their salaries with less payed and better educated professionals.

The FAAA will do what it always does, huff, puff and threaten to blow the house down.
In the end they will roll over onto their backs like my dog with an itchy stomach.

As someone keenly pointed out the FAAA opened the door to this some years back.
They can now reap the rewards.

[Buster Hyman]

Leopards find it hard to change their spots, chaps. It will take a while for the FAAA & it's members to see the real world.

I can recall the failed Tesna & Ansett mark 2 fiasco. Some crew who were still in La-La land actually demanded taxis when they were called out for duty! You could call it "denial", but I think some people actually believed the lies they'd been fed about their value to the company.

Having said that, the majority of AN's crews that I personally dealt with were terrific & I'd be happy to work with them again. I've yet to see their equal at QF. Perhaps because I'm a bit more discerning when choosing who to fly with?:confused:

[MrWooby]

Buster Hyman, not sure who you were refering to about requiring taxis, either QF or Ansett FA's. However for QF, one of the main reasons for taxi's, is driving home fatigued after duty and having an accident thus incurring workers compensation payments for Qantas. I know that as tech crew operating an early evening departure from Singapore to Oz, you can literally be awake for over 24 hours, driving one's self home after that would be fraught with danger.

[Buster Hyman]

My apologies, I thought it was quite clear, this was an FA, called out from reserve to do a duty. Taxis for fatigued crew was not an issue.

[MrWooby]

If the duty being called out has an entitlement to a taxi at the end of the duty, then it would be a very silly person not to also require a taxi to work too.

[GalleyHag]

BCD and others

Exactly the type of response I would have expected from you, no real substance and now your GD best buddy.

The QF/FA bashers are out in force on this thread and nothing I say will EVER change your mind about the service you receive. You lot will still have this attitude in 20 years.

I wonder if we would be having the same discussions if QF decided to employ off-shore pilots.

[Kaptin M]

It appears to me that the problem is not so much the base salary of the F/A's, but the scheduling of them, and the associated accomodation costs.Consider, however, the crew logistics of the longest haul. Flight attendants leaving Sydney rest in a stopover, Singapore or Bangkok, for 24 hours before flying on to London where they spend three or four days in rest. The return flight involves a 48-hour stopover. By the time they return to Sydney, they will have spent 52 hours in flight for their nine days away.To keep your jobs, you might have to convince crew scheduling to forego some of those days in London. Forseeably, if the service is a daily one, it could be reduced to (for example) 24 hours.
SQ used to do similar stays in many ports, but tightened up years ago - even deadheading crew home, rather than forking out several extra nights' hotel bills (and crew allowances).

It will mean less revenue in allowances, but greater availability for QF, and the jobs kept in Oz.

[Buster Hyman]

If the duty being called out has an entitlement to a taxi at the end of the duty, then it would be a very silly person not to also require a taxi to work too.

Oh...how many times have I heard that, or similar. Fancy being able to predict your fatigued status prior to the duty!:rolleyes:

[ferris]

Kaptin M has hit the nail on the head.

This is a productivity issue, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't had to make productivity gains for their employer in recent years.

What sickens me is the seemingly apparent glee some of you are taking at the prospect of 'getting at' the F/As. The reality is you are talking about what would've been Australian jobs, going overseas. Not Australians being employed overseas, but those jobs being given to foreigners. Is that lost on some of you? Trotting out the old "QF has got to compete globally" line is just rubbish. QF operates in a largely protected environment. How many industries can claim that? The amount of competition QF is subjected to is carefully meted. IMHO, QF has a return obligation to the country for that protection. EK and GF can pay their employees as little as $150 per month , so if you want to truly make QF 'global', why not allow them to employ all their support staff (cleaners, caterers etc) from the sub-continent (or wherever).

And if the pilots don't get behind them, expect to be handing the aircraft over to someone with a Brit (or Indian) accent in BKK very soon.

There may well be some fat in the F/As EBA, but don't give up without a fight. It's easy to pull apart someone else's conditions.

[Left2primary]

Ferris,

Thanks for the support.

Sad indeed to see that the thread has largely turned into an anti FA assault and that most contributers cant see beyond their own prejudices, to the bigger picture.

To those supporting QF's move,

Linda White [fine woman] is the union official representing the 2000 QF call centre staff.
She has concerns that QF plan to close the centre, shifting the work to India with a loss of 2000 jobs.

Would you be supportive of that move?

L2P

[Kaptin M]

Well put, ferris :ok:

How many people supporting Dixon's plan to take jobs away from Australian F/A's, and give them to foreign F/A's basd in England, have thought of some of the repercussions?
BCD has - he looks forward to better service and the pleasure upstairs being served by these (Thai) guys and young girls, as Australian F/A's line up on the dole queue to get their fortnightly cheque from taxes paid by BCD's business and the rest of you whose jobs have still not yet been exported by other "shrewd" CEO's.
"Shrewd" - quite an appropriate word for a man who is happy to put other Australians out of work, so that he can increase his bonus! :mad:

It is ALL other Australians who will pay for the health care, unemployment handouts and other necessities that humans have in life, if Dixon replaces Aussie labour with foreign.

Perhaps it's also time that the QF F/A's realised they are going to HAVE to work harder, and possibily lose some money because of their increased productivity.
But that is a better alternative than finding yourself out of work completely.
Isn't it?

[Keg]

What I think is interesting is the small, subtle inaccuracies that creep into GDs lingo from time to time. I don't think I've ever seen a four day layover in LHR. I've seen a layover encapsulate three days but it was arrive at 0700 on day 1 and depart at 2200 on day three so even then your looking at a stand down of about 62 hours (give or take sign on/stand down, etc). As a 744 S/O I had plenty of 38 hour slips in LHR and then got two local nights in SIN- which is a CASA requirement, not a union one! However, that is pilot stuff and I know the F/As have a few differences.

My original point still stands. It's the little bits of disinformation that get into the public minds like 3-4 days in LHR when it patently isn't so.

What is also interesting is that the average Joe (even in Business class) like BCD will get to LHR feeling like crap- even if they've had a day stop over in SIN or BKK on the way. Do you guys WANT your cabin crew to be flying the next day at midday after they arrive in LHR?

Further, you talk about how good the 'Singapore Girl' is but I reckon that QF could get better crew than that if we operated in a similar legislative enviroment. I saw an add in the Straits Times for SQ girls once. Heights, weight, BMI, looks, skin blemishes and skin tone, marital status and a couple of other taboo topics (in OZ anyway) got a run. QF would be in the gutter thirty times over with litigation if we set the bar like that. Is THAT what you want?

I guess I want to make two points. Lots of disinformation designed to get John and Jane Public against crew in general.

Secondly, we may 'wish' to be the 'same' as other countries but when you really get down to it, we can never be the same because we're not prepared to lower our standards (industrially, socially as a society, not just QF crew) to that level.

[MrWooby]

Buster, like Keg, I like to fact displayed here, not just someone saying "I Heard".

Demanding taxi's has nothing to do with predicting fatigue. For both cabin and tech crew the entitlement to a taxi depends on the length of the duty and the arrival time in your home port. Nothing else, no one can demand a taxi.

As an example of being fatigued, try this. Probably the worst sector for fatigue after a duty is Europe - Singapore - Australia. Having arrived woken up in Singapore after 1 or 2 days layover at around 8 or 9 in the morning, for 1730 transport to the airport. Trying to sleep prior to transport is virtually impossible. Time off during flight is typically 1-2 hours, but once agin it can be very hard to sleep on demand. With losing 2 hours due to time zone change you arrive into your home port having been awake for nearly 24 hours. Would you like to drive home then.

On another note, the savings in accomodation and allowance costs by basing crew in London may not last for long. We should see within the next few years Perth - London direct, where are the savings then.

There is another area of savings that we need to consider before attacking the workers. Dixon is trying to save 20 million per year by OS basings. But what about poor management decisions, that has that cost the company. Looking back over the past few years we have seen 20 million lost on the decision to try to keep the SPs flying, when blind freddy could have seen its time to get rid of them. Was it 80 million in refitting the A330-200's to refit with international class floors. Time to get some managers who actually know what they are doing and who have an interest in the airline.

[Buster Hyman]

Okay MrWooby, I'll try once more then I'll leave the thread to you...

I didn't hear this from someone else, the request was made directly to me!. I even remember her name M. D-G. if that helps?

I see the need to repeat myself for you, I have no problem with fatigue issues at the end of a duty period! My example was intended to illustrate the fact that some people find it hard to bend to meet a need. They remain intractable & unyielding and will steadfastly cling to an ideal that evolved in the '70's, perhaps.

The Tesna example was to highlight that the airline had failed and yet certain individuals (not just FA's) were clinging to the ideal that they were entitled to conditions borne from the "good times". Ultimately, the deal was doomed from the start, but one can only wonder how long it would've lasted with the entrenched attitudes that might have prevailed.

As for jobs going overseas, well of course nobody wants to see that. But I can't understand why, if it's true, the FAAA allowed QF to do it in NZ & wherever the other place was. That was the thin end of the wedge & I think you'll find it'll be the FA's achilles heel.

But then again, what would I know eh? I don't agree, so I must be wrong.:rolleyes:

[MrWooby]

Buster, since when do transport requests go through a load controller, maybe you should update your profile.

[Buster Hyman]

I guess you should spend some time reading the posts, rather than trying to interpret them. You do know Ansett collapsed almost 3 years ago don't you?:rolleyes:

[MrWooby]

I thought that the thread was about QF flight attendants not ansett. Anyway enough personal discussion. Back to the thread.

Here's a question, A common point made here is QF FA's are overpaid. What should long haul flight attendant's be paid?

The minimum wage in Australia is 26000 dollars. Long haul crew make about 18,000$ in allowances so this brings us up to 44,000$. Now what extra should be paid to crew to recompense them for being away from home for long periods of time, exposure to increased radiation, the debilitating effects of constant jetlag, damage to the body by being in a cabin running at about 20% humidity, constant travel to high terrorist threat destinations, etc, the list goes on.

I think that they are overpaid but not by too much. They are lucky in that they have a powerful union who have maintained their living standards while the rest of us believe the company bull**** that we should work harder for less money so that the share price can prosper while the boses make larger bonuses. After all aren't Qantas touted to make a profit this year of approx 660 million.

As keg said, should we be happy to lower our standards to that of other countries.

[Kaptin M]

I think we're being just a little too dramatic, aren't we, Mr Wooby??..."what extra should be paid to crew to recompense them for being away from home for long periods of time" - those travel allowances aren't a bad start, followed by a fairly generous allocation of time OFF after you get back!
And as you noted, "I think that they (QF FA's) are overpaid but not by too much.

"the debilitating effects of constant jetlag" - Constant jetlag?? I know of crews who maintain their home time whilst away, to avoid jetlag. A little unsociable where large time differences exist, but it leaves you in a better state of mind when you get back.
If you suffer from constant jetlag, perhaps you have a medical condition that needs attention.

"damage to the body by being in a cabin running at about 20% humidity" - drink more water, use more moisturiser!

"constant travel to high terrorist threat destinations" - now come on, which " high terrorist threat destinations" do QANTAS operate to?

And remember, the very SAME arguments can be used by ALL F/A's from every airline in every country.

[Buster Hyman]

Geez MrWooby! It's sounds awful up there.
Now what extra should be paid to crew to recompense them etc, etc
$18,000 sounds about right. BTW, I looked up the long haul award...just so we have the facts & not what I've heard here's what it said.

Level 1 Year 1..including Minimum & Residual rates = AUD27352
to
Level 5 Year 1... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..= AUD53019

AIRC QF FA LHA (http://www.airc.gov.au/looseleaf/looseleaf_awards/aw765517/aw765517_1_40.pdf) I think this was updated in 2000, so let me know if anythings changed.

Enjoy!:ok:

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

Off the FAAA website today "Effective July 1st 2004, FAAA fees will increase by $3.00 per week."

The final humiliation. Now they are charging you extra to be led to slaughter.

There will be 1000 less members next year after all.

:D The public won't support you.

[halas]

ferris

Yes you are right about the pay of some of the employees being paid so little in GF and EK. l know it doesn't seem much but they also get housed and fed with a trip home and ID eligibility. Pales to the Oz pay, but this is good money to the those they employ.

These airlines also happen to fly outside the middle east. Guess what they have to pay for services when they get to outports? Thats right - local terms. Just as QF and every other airline does too and whether they are above or below Oz conditions, it's accepted practice. And for most airlines this eqautes to 50% or more of all their flights.

In places like Bangladesh these same people doing the same job are paid so little. Anyone complaining about that? No.

The flight attendants in the ME are on pretty good money. They also work hard for it. As this thread is about FA's, lets stick to the point.

UK pay and conditions, from what l understand, are not cheap to an employer, but obviously at much less cost to whats going on now.

halas

[Left2primary]

JBM, [The Lunatic] speaks!!

Thanks for that.

L2P

[SydGirl]

The salaries, allowances and conditions of employment for QF Longhaul FAs were negotiated, bargained and finally agreed to by Qantas and the FAAA. If QF has issues with the FAs being paid too much, or having layovers that are too long, then shouldn't they be addressing this to their EBA bargaining team as well as their scheduling/rostering team?

When the EBA comes up for negotiation that is the time that QF should be using to adjust what they see as deficiencies in the award.

The issue we should be looking at is that Qantas wants to move jobs offshore. These are jobs that are currently being performed by Australian crew based in Australia.

Whether you believe that QF will have a "better" service if this service was provided by Australian crew or foreign crew really is irrelevant. It is up to Qantas to set the standards for service and enforce them if they want to improve their product and delivery.

It is in every Australian's interest to protect the jobs of current and future Australians.

Having said all of that ;) I also suspect that GD could be using this issue as leverage to perhaps ensure that it's Australian based FAs do not get any further payrises in the next EBA.

SG
:}

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

Good points well made, however it does not address the reality that a huge number of crew would rather damage the QF brand than give up their sheltered existence.

Do you seriously contemplate that in order to keep jobs in OZ that the majority of your colleagues will collectively work with QF in order to achieve the real efficiency gains that they seek? And let's be realistic here, QF stand to save a motza doing this and to make similar savings without loss of jobs in Australia is a sacrifice many QF crew will never make.

Your unionist colleagues would rather get on the 6pm news or in the press and damage the QF brand or attempt to ground flights with strike action, than to accede to QF's desire to be more productive in line with International best practise. These are the people who are the real threats to your future employment.

I say attempt to ground flights as I am sure that QF will be able to crew most, if not all, services by various other means. It's a competitive world we live in.

[Don Esson]

Isn't it time that FAs stoped carping about their pay and conditions, and how tough life really is as a Qantas FA. The solution is really quite simple - if you don't like it, move on and find a place more to your liking. There are literally thousands of hopefuls waiting for the opportunity to be a Qantas FA. Being so keen, I am sure that they would be better motivated and offer a level of service superior to that provided by many of the tired old crew that currently populate QF aircraft. :sad: :sad:

[Tunguska]

JBM and DON E.

You've both very succinctly hit the proverbial nail on the head and summed it all up perfectly.

If the FA union (who allowed this offshore thing in the first place) cant adapt to the practice of other overseas carriers and accede to efficiency gains, then they will die a slow death.

QF purports to be an International Airline, so in this truly global economy we hear about so often why shouldnt some jobs be based offshore.

I fully agree with the opinion that if the Flt Att's dont like their wages and conditions then go elsewhere if not happy.

I agree that there are literally tens of thousands of nurses, school teachers and junior lawyers working long and hard hours that would give their eye teeth for a pay rise and better lifestyle.

Careful guys, the secret just may be out of the bag and we wouldnt want the union knowing that now would we!

[leemo]

Tunguska

The FAAA agreed to overseas bases in previous EBA's under the agreement that the numbers would be capped (270 between NZ and Thailand). QF now wants to lift this and so break the EBA, which is a legally binding document.

You state 'QF purports to be an International Airline, so in this truly global economy we hear about so often why shouldnt some jobs be based offshore?' - QF IS AN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES BECAUSE IT FLIES INTERNATIONALLY!!! - Please explain why jobs should be based offshore to us Tunguska?

I also think most crew are happy with current terms and conditions but having an overseas base will substantially alter our flying patterns and therefore ability to earn a decent wage.

LONG HAUL CREW - WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TO THE END - OUR JOBS SHOULD STAY IN AUSTRALIA

[Left2primary]

The overwhelming sentiment expressed by those supporting QF in their move to increase the overseas base numbers is very plain to see. Its nothing more than spite and envy.

Scratch beneath the surface of their posts and you can see some very unhappy people.

They choose to ignore the fact that QF is operating in an environment of RECORD PROFITABILITY thanks to the efforts of ALL it's staff.None more so than those, operational.

Happy, secure and well balanced individuals dont wish ill on others in an effort to make themselves feel better.They would be far better served expending effort to improve their own "lot in life".

Those who take offense to the "touchy/feely" are too dumb to realise that money is not the answer.



L2P

[34R]

Jet Black Manaro

Good point you make. That mindset unfortunately existed at AN. Not everyone, but it was there. Whilst I don't suggest for one second it was responsible for the demise, it was one of many chinks that weakened the armour.

Having said that, QF crews most certainly have a right to feel let down by their employer, and I don't quite understand the lack of compassion being displayed by the pilot group.
Some are very quick to jump down the throat of a Impulse/Jet * driver for working for less and potentially degrading conditions for the self proclaimed elite, yet you see nothing wrong with outsourcing positions, albeit in another department, that will ultimately degrade their conditions.

If a foreign base, not open to Australians, was established among the pilot ranks, would the same "if you don't like it, get another job" attitude exist?
If offshore F/A's prove a great success for the company, are we naive enough to think it couldn't happen to the pilot group?

[GalleyHag]

Who's complaining about the pay and conditions? Not the flight attendants, only you guys.

As for the 1000's lined up to take the job, good on em go for it, try your hardest but if you are employed within Australia the best you could hope for in long haul is a fixed term contract less than 12 months and casual and in short haul a casual position employed by a labour hire company (Swiss no less, at least it could have been Australian).

Many people will still continue to apply but when it comes down to it, not all these teachers, nurses etc will be giving up their full-time permanent positions for this type of employment. However, if you are employed in Bangkok or Auckland the term of their contract is much longer therefore at least able to sleep at night and not be worrying about where next weeks rent is coming from.

As for the service, the type of employment effects the overall service objectives that QF wish to attain. When you are a casual, you live life day by day, let alone trying to get your ahead around service standards. As a fixed term crew member you dont know if you will have a job in 6 months. All this uncertainty effects the way the service is delivered. QF cabin crew are working in an uncertain environment and this does unfortunately have an effect on the customer. The great majority of crew will rise above this and get on with the job but these are peoples lives as well.

But we cannot loose sight on the real objective and that is to ensure Mr Dixon receives his bonus.

[Animalclub]

Isn't service delivery something to do with attitude?

Is any one on this thread old enough to remember Pan Am - the first round the world airline - and the way their cabin crew had the attitude that they were doing the passenger a favour by allowing them to travel on their (the cabin crew's) airline?

Sound familiar?

[Don Esson]

Leemo wrote

"The FAAA agreed to overseas bases in previous EBA's under the agreement that the numbers would be capped (270 between NZ and Thailand). QF now wants to lift this and so break the EBA, which is a legally binding document"

Surely the terms of an EBA apply until otherwise varied by negotiation. Isn't GD/Qantas trying to do this?

It's about time the FAAA woke up to itself. The concept of a double slip was introduced back in 1974or thereabouts when there was no such thing as horizontal rest on an aeroplane, nor one stop flights to the antipodes. Times and and operational conditions, as well as society, have changed remarkably since then. Has the FAAA and its members?

On allowances, you must bear in mind the way in which they were developed. back in the mists of time when it was unsafe for Australians to eat in other than the designated hotels in which they stayed. I ask you, how many crew actually take meals at the crew hotels, and how many crew eat their way through say SG$140 a day when in Singapore? If they did they'd be too damned big to fly.

Wake up, FAAA, before it's too late. Judgning by the attitude expressed by L2P and GalleyHag, unless Qantas gets some significant number of new and flesh blood into the FA ranks, then the airline will quickly fail like a lot of other legacy carriers.

And to the cynics, this is not written out of spite, jealousy or whatever other perjorative you want to sling at those who hold another view. If things are so bloody tough and uncertain for you precious dears, why I ask would anyone be jealous?

[halas]

Have said it before on another thread, a month or so back, about the FAAA starting up their own recruitment company for Ansett - Flightforce.

There l was shot down in flames ('scuse the pun) that it was domestic FAAA and not the international FAAA that pulled that stunt.

Well regardless, it's the FAAA that did it. fullstop/period.

Talk about people having their lives dictated by their employer.

These girls and guys had to have other jobs where they, at the drop of a hat, could down tools and turn up for work with AN whilst having to look flash and fresh.

Never mind the fact they may never have got called up for a month or so, never mind the planning of rest, never mind the fatigue control, and never mind the empty pay check at the end of the month for not working as they were'nt called in.

Talk about people not sleeping at night wondering if their job was on the line.....

Give me a break!

And to turn around as you lot have several times in this thread and call it FA bashing can only make you look like a bunch of Cleopatras: Queens of DENIAL !!!!!

Have a brief look around and see what is happening in the world. Lord knows you have a better look than most.
Your Union and your management have one objective.
To stay alive!

The company do this by making money, whilst the union do it by membership

You lot whether you like it or not are nothing but the meat in the sandwich.

There is no hope as the the bell has tolled and the foreign FA's numbers are going to grow, whether you like it or not.

You really are caught between a rock and a hard place, otherwise known in this stoush as the FAAA and GD

Good luck, you are going to need it!

halas

[SydGirl]

Many valid points have been made in this thread. Along with a lot of bull*hit and opinion.

Please allow me to clarify some points that have been made. Pardon the slight digression...

Firstly to halas..
Your description of what happened to those Flight Force employees who were subcontracted to AN is partly true, however your tale does not tell the whole story. M.A who administrated FF (FF was actually owned by AN FAs as part of it's EBA) was formerly part of the FAAA Domestic, not the FAAA International as has already been said. Two different unions representing different divisions of FAs. At that time they did not cross communicate or work directly together, for many reasons which I will not go into here.

The employees of Flight Force were employed on a casual basis. There was never any guarantee of work, and never any guarantee of hours. Initially FF over-employed so their staff were getting very little hours, in addition the new 'release' system of work for AN FAs had not yet been fully integrated. However, once the initial issues were sorted out, many casuals were working 20+ hours per week and getting remunerated quite well, thank you very much.

Your quote of..
"Your Union and your management have one objective.
To stay alive!

The company do this by making money, whilst the union do it by membership".

Is exactly true, and I 100% agree with you. Whilst each has their own objective, their common goals will not necessarily agree.

Many many subjective comments and opinions have been made. Some are supportive of the current FAs, whilst others believe it is time for change. Why can't we have both? I too agree that QF needs to make some definitive changes to it's business structure to continue to be a profit making business as well as a market leader.

Having said that, I do not want to see the jobs of future, vibrant, positive Australian based FAs go overseas. Go and check out the cabin crew forum if you want proof that there are many enthusiastic, service-driven aussie individuals who desperately want a career with QF as a FA.

What a loss to move even more of our employment offshore. QF is an Australian company, it already has two foreign FA bases. GD wants 1 in 4 FAs to be foreign based. This will ultimately mean job losses for Australians (ie. Australian based attrition will be filled with foreign based workers). I am yet to see how this can be a positive thing.

SG
:}

[Buster Hyman]

FF was actually owned by AN FAs as part of it's EBA
News to me...but I can't deny what I'm not aware of. What I did know about FF back then, was that it was run by FAAA Union Reps! I'm sure there was no conflict of interest...:rolleyes:
Initially FF over-employed so their staff were getting very little hours
Hmmm, nice slant on things. Most of the staffing levels for FF were calculated on the then current requirements for covering the standard sick leave etc, etc. As soon as the EBA was enacted, the sick leave numbers plummeted! Amazing stuff! I can only conclude that it was a combination of general better health amongst some of the crews, more pay for working X amount of hours and a way of sticking it to FF & it's casuals. Take your pick.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

SydGirl, I enjoy reading your posts.

As you raise, an ideal situation would be to keep the jobs in OZ and see substantial change. I can't help but feel a frustration that the majority of crew will not see this and would prefer to "fight em on the beaches"; thus fuelling the move of jobs offshore.

There is also the reality that senior crew are disproportionately influential in the FAAA heirarchy to their numbers. This group has benefitted the most over the years and therefore will be less likely to want to drive the changes QF desire.

[QF skywalker]

What makes any of you anti qf in-flight services bashers think that employing 1000 whinging poms on a salary considerably less than their australian colleagues and restricted flying (SIN/BKK) will make the whinging stop ? IT WILL GET WORSE !!

BTW - I flew QF L/H twice last week (SIN) as a commercial pax and found the service in Y class to be fantasic. One of the female crew with 28 years experience was EXCEPTIONAL in the way she conducted herself - in fact I would say probably the best f/a I have watched on any airline. The other crew on both flights were cheerful and were typically " aussie " in the way they conducted the in-flight service - remember people - Qantas is AUSTRALIAN - peple don't fly Qantas expecting tiny singapore girls falling over themselves to pamper you - people fly Qantas because the service is "aussie" and is unique to Australia (regardless of what some people say about it .) Qantas do not want to be SQ, Qantas is Qantas and have their own "aussie culture". The japanese fly Qantas to Australia as part of their "aussie" adventure and expect a different style of service to that of JL.

For the sake of us young aussies wanting a shot at representing QF in the cabin the best that we can - help us keep the jobs in Australia :ok: :ok:

[Cart_tart]

If QF base FA positions o/s they will certainly be taking jobs from Australians. Me being one of them.

I applied to QF for an advertised position as Cabin Crew in approx Nov 2002. I had my interviews in early December and was advised late December that I was through to one of the final stages and was requested to have my medical/security clearance etc. These requests were diligently completed and sent off to QF. Then I waited.....
In late february, I received an email stating that I have been shortlisted for a position & when positions are available they would review my application & if I met criteria I would be contacted. The intial shortlisting was for 6 months. It expired in August. Another email was received at the expiry date & we were then again extended until February. The end of Feb came quickly and once again we received an extension to the end of March. In early April we finally heard from them and were once again extended until 31st May. The day has been and gone & we on the list are again left hanging on.

During the time we have been on the list QF (through Adecco) have recruited AKL based crews. These jobs have been taken from Australians.
IF we are "fortunate" enough to have our shortlisting extended again & more o/s basing occur then it's most likely that I will not get a job with QF this time. Infact probably not ever.

I have travelled the world extensively and after being in a foreign country where no english is spoken, or is spoken with a funny accent, ;) there is nothing better than getting on a QF flight and hearing the Aussie accents. I feel like i'm back at home in an instant.
QF will no longer be able to call themselves "The Spirit of Australia" if most of their employment is offshore! I for one will not particularly enjoy getting on the flight and not hearing the aussie accent and enjoying the good ol' Australian sense of humour on the way home.
I really think the big picture is not about the pay and conditions of FA's but keeping jobs in Australia and allowing Australian's to realise their dreams of becoming an FA with QF. It is also about job security and having the ability of choosing to make a career out of being a FA. Being a career FA has come leaps and bounds since they were first used on a/c. It used to be that you couldn't be married & when you married you had to give up the job. Many FA's hid their pregnancies for as long as they could just to keep flying as once they were pregnant they had to resign. It was not a job you could make a career out of. Now there are brilliant FA's out there that have been flying for well over 30 years. Unions fought hard for it to be a job you could make career.
The clock will be turned back if the FA division becomes entirely made up of contract/casual labour. No one will be able to stick around for more than a year if they are on a contract. Neither contract labour or casuals will have any sort of job security. This will do nothing for morale, and when morale is low productivity decreases and the QF service that many of you are complaining about will not get any better. (Personally I have always had great service!)

I know as a regional FA & a union member I will fight the push towards o/s basings. I want jobs kept in Australia, both for my benefit and the benefit of future generations that have a lifelong dream.

[Going Boeing]

QF have been trying for over a decade to get some concession from the FAAA on the rules governing lengths of slips whilst away to no avail. The tactic of basing crews in LHR is designed to reduce the number of slips that Australian based crews do (to one) thus negating the expensive conditions in the above rules. Most cabin crew don't want shorter slips because they would lose out on allowances and lifestyle but if the QF management push ahead then they will lose out on both because they won't fly further west than SIN or BKK (assuming that other European ports end up with crew bases as well).

Maybe, if the FAAA was to give a bit on the slipping rules, management might not proceed with the overseas basings and thus crew members would retain the Europe flights!

[capt cynical]

:(
Dear GB,
As a pilot you spend the 13+ hours from BKK,SIN to europe/LHR either sitting on your bum or asleep in a nice, quiet,stable and comfortable bunk. You may well be able to turn around in 24 hrs and go back.
Your Cabin Crew do have bunks and may get 2-3 hrs in one if they are lucky, in the noisiest and most unstable part of the A/C. They are far more active than you could possibly comprehend or wish to.
If as you propose they turn around in 24 or 36 hrs they may get out of bed for 12 of those hrs.not a lot of incentive to stay in the job. I can assure you from personell expierance having just retired after 30 yrs. as Cabin Crew you will not find many crew willing to forgo thier 2 local nights min. in LHR

Ms. Tart, I wish you well in your ambitions but please realize the job ain't what it used to be and WILL get worse under the current management. This will be despite the best efforts of the FAAA
:ugh:

[Mr Seatback 2]

Rest (slip time) received after duty has always been a contentious issue amongst crew.

Maybe if QF were so keen on pursuing this as a matter of interest, they could initiate a full scale study (in co-operation preferably with the FAAA) on the effects of back of clock flying, fatigue, working at altitude, etc. with the assistance of CASA, universities, etc.

Using the results from this study, presumeably both parties could reach a settlement given the independent nature of the study's findings.

Given that rest goes some way to preparing and making up for change in time zones, operating for 12 hours, working at altitude, etc., one would presume that the reason the slips are this long currently are linked with how alert they want their crew (to control evacuations, medical emergencies, etc). After all, isn't safety one of QF's core principles?

Multi-day slips are not unusual occurrences for many world airlines, including those with lower pay and conditions.

I have read (with great interest) the level of debate that has been entered into on this thread. To clarify, the FAAA has assisted QF in many ways to maximise the efficiencies received from it's cabin crew. For example:
a) Not that long ago, crew numbers were reduced on board (to reduce costs); and
b) Agreement to open overseas bases (with a cap), with contract labour permitted up to 12 months in Australia

Take into account the efficiencies being created in the Domestic division, one would think the Cabin Crew have been as flexible, if not more so, than any other business unit within the QF Group.

For example, the Domestic division fought for (as part of an EBA negotiation) the introduction of 'pick up and release of flying duties'. AN introduced the system, and then Short Haul brought it aboard.

Effectively, your roster is received and you elect which duties you don't want and those that you do from a pool of flying. Anything that's left and not picked up by full time crew is awarded to casuals, whom have always been cheaper.

One may argue that the FAAA shoots itself in the foot every time it provides some measure of flexibility to QF (ie. contract labour, overseas bases with cap, casuals), but hasn't the argument been that the Cabin Crew have been inflexible in not allowing overseas bases to flourish? Quite the opposite one would think.

I'm curious to learn (and I'm not being sarcastic) what efficiencies have been gained in other related areas of crewing, such as the Tech Crew? Inevitably, their rest and conditions are just as exact as the Cabin Crew...if not more so in some circumstances, such as transfers and accommodation.

Cost cutting, through targeting one employee division in this manner, is a one sided approach given the hysterical over-expenditure and mismanagement occurring throughout the airline at large.

I think we need to examine the logic applied by QF and it's internal bureaucracies, and how this goes some way to exacerbating the inefficiencies seen at large in the airline...For example....

In todays' Sydney Morning Herald, since we're on the cost-cutting bandwagon, the ASU (Australian Services Union - who represent check in staff), won a victory for their International Check In staff to have them receive overcoats.

QF apparently determined Intl Check In staff didn't need them - this, despite the fact they were issued to Domestic Check In staff! Both divisions are exposed to cold wind elements when automatic doors open and close to let passengers into the terminal.

When the fight erupted, QF then responded by saying that Sydney winter weather wasn't cold enough for the Intl Check In staff to wear them. This, despite the fact said overcoats were shipped to ground staff in Townsville, Fiji, and other tropical regions. Not what you might call alpine weather in winter at any time of the year.

Needless to say, the Intl Check In staff can rest and do their job in relative warmth, comforted by the fact that QF then went on record saying they just wanted to shave money off airport costs. At the expense of what - staff going on sick leave in droves as they catch colds, flus, etc. at a time of year when sick leave rises as a rule?

The Cabin Crew have proven over the years - in the spirit of EBA negotiations where give and take has always occurred between QF and the FAAA - that they are flexible enough to meet the demands and needs of both the business and industry, whilst preserving some of the conditions which go to the heart of affirming QF's desire to be known as a safe company (by maintaining areas such as slip times. which go some way to ensuring crew receive rest to operate safely).

What we don't want to see is the jobs of future Australians, and to some degree, current Cabin Crew jobs, shipped overseas for the sake of saving money alone.

Like Cart_tart has indicated, it's hard enough to get a job as a QF Flight Attendant (where one is beaten around the head during seminars over how much of an ambassador you are for both the airline and Australia). This move will make it nigh on impossible.

[Oz Ocker]

you will not find many crew willing to forgo thier 2 local nights min. in LHR....not a lot of incentive to stay in the job.Are they lookin' fer a paid bl@@dy holiday, or a clean, well paid job to pay their bills.
Leavin' 'em stuck in the Northern Hemisphere jus means their body clocks gunna start playin' up after a cuppla days.

Get in, do ya work, an get back home.
Isn't that wattchya all bitchin about anyway? To long away from ya friends an famlies!
Now ya want it both friggin ways!

[capt cynical]

What a contrast in replies between Mr. Seatback and OZ.

One thoughtfull and concise the other just DUMB and ignorant !!
:(

[Q-Tee]

I Will post some thoughts.......

Well, the LHR base will be a reality .... that is for sure, but QF has already made many statements saying that it will be on offer to current QF crew on a two year secondment .... but on lower conditions, so most wont take it ( I couldnt live in London on my current wages/ conditions let alone lower ones !!) So based on that, it will be opposed by the FAAA



Now, Jet Black Monaro ( oh.... and Argus the same relates to you ) - sorry luv, but your opionions on QF cabin crew are so emotive, that you obviously have more than just a 'disgruntled customer' opinion.....no normal person would react so vehemently to a group of 8,000 service staff ----- it just isnt a logical reaction...... simple as that :p.... and dont even try and claim it is .... no-one with any sense would believe you ...... is it that you were;

declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;

A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;

A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'


I dunno .... but you obviously have some major issues that can't be related to an inflight experience (unless you are insane) .... either way, it matters not....


Jet Black Monaro, you have said several times that we wont get public support for any industrial action over this .... you know nothing (obviously) about industrial action ....

We dont need public support, all we need is public 'knowledge' .... the worst possible scenario for an industrial action is that the public doesn't know about it ...... whether they agree or not is irrelevant .... the public knows about, and have big opinions on either side about this particular issue .... that gets media publicity, and even more public opinion " jobs heading overseas" etc well, it's an emotive issue, and that's all the FAAA needs -------> to keep it in the headlines .... whether the public agrees or not isnt an issue, it's about them knowing about it .... and public debate keeping it alive .......

What about the pilot's dispute ? Well, the pilots were asking for something big and unrealistic, so the public turned on them .... we are asking for things to stay the same, and keep jobs in Australia ---> for Australians .... so the majority public support will be there...... but as I said, we dont need support......... just awareness........ that we are guarenteed :)


I know that for whatever reason, there seems to be the opinion that all QF Longhaul crew are bad .... we aren't, there are some fantastic crew in QF --- unfortunately we are tarred by a handfull of terrible crew ......... but we have 36,000 employees, some 8,500 are cabin crew .... so there are bound to be some 'bad-eggs'..... we all acknowledge that .... it is up to management to get rid of them ......... the majority do well (considering the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with )

cheers :)

[Argus]

.... and Argus the same relates to you ) - sorry luv, but your opinions on QF cabin crew are so emotive, that you obviously have more than just a 'disgruntled customer' opinion.....no normal person would react so vehemently to a group of 8,000 service staff ----- it just isn’t a logical reaction...... simple as that .... and don’t even try and claim it is .... no-one with any sense would believe you ...... is it that you were;

declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;

A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;

A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'


I'd decided not to post any further comments about poor QF flight service on this thread because the discussion had moved on.

But, yet again, in the absence of any reasoned argument to the contrary, you try to bolster your argument by personal attacks and abuse. Sorry 'luv' - nice try but it won't wash.

I have never applied for an HR position with any airline. I am not, nor have I ever been employed by any airline. I have never applied to any airline for any position whatsoever.

I take great exception to having my sanity questioned by some one who apparently lacks even the most basic of professional qualifications to make such a judgment. My career history is set out in my personal profile which is available for you to read - which it appears you haven't taken the trouble to do so before engaging your typing fingers. My background and current vocation is clearly displayed and it is mischievous of you to suggest otherwise. There is an old crew room adage - "Engage brain before opening mouth". I commend it to you.

I am a regular business traveller flying business class for work purposes to North America and the UK, as well as between east coast Australian cities. I make between 15-18 overseas trips per year. In FY 2002/03, I spent almost $A82,000 of my hard earned money on international air travel. In the QANTAS scheme of things, that might be small bickies. But for me, it's a lot of time spent in aeroplanes to get to places where I have to perform to earn my living. Ergo, getting to my destination in good shape is important.

I thus feel qualified to offer a customer’s point of view.


As I've said before, because of the appalling service I, my wife and employees have received in the past, I will not fly with QANTAS, especially on long haul routes.

It's not because of the flight deck crew (some of whom are my former colleagues) or engineering staff. It's because in my experience based over many long haul flights, the standard of QF cabin service is way below what the competition offers.

I work for myself. I stand or fall on the quality of service I provide for my clients, most of whom are satisfied with what I do. If they aren't, I lose their business. Thus, I’m under constant pressure to deliver what my clients want. I personally don’t have a problem with this – it’s what makes the commercial world go round.

When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe and North America, I expect to receive in flight service that represents value for my hard earned money. Unfortunately, when compared to the likes of Cathy, Lauda (Austrian), JAL, Air Canada and even BA, QANTAS doesn't get to first base.

I don't expect forelock tugging servitude from cabin staff. But I do expect basic manners, a customer focused approach to reasonable requests and flight attendant availability throughout the flight/sector. In my experience, QANTAS fails on all three counts. Rather than getting on with the job and maintaining the revenue flow, the Australian based cabin crew are more interested in preserving the Public Service attitude of "rights", "entitlements" and "hard won" employment conditions.

So, I've voted with my feet. I don't want to see Australians out of work. But I'm not prepared to support an organisation that can't deliver what I want for the money I pay, when others can. It's called 'commercial reality' - something that apparently grates with the Australian Services Union and some of its QF members who seem to think that punters like me should be compelled to put my money into its members' benolevence without any corresponding consideration for a job well done. Sorry 'luv', no can do. If others are prepared to do so, then the best of luck to them. But not yours truly - until you and your colleagues lift your game.

we aren't, there are some fantastic crew in QF --- unfortunately we are tarred by a handful of terrible crew ......... but we have 36,000 employees, some 8,500 are cabin crew .... so there are bound to be some 'bad-eggs'..... we all acknowledge that .... it is up to management to get rid of them ......... the majority do well (considering the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with )



I'm glad that you at last acknowledge that some of your colleagues might fail the 'attitude test' that was so eloquently articulated by the late Sir Reginald Ansett in his "Old Boilers" speech some 25 years ago. But what a pity you then attempt to pass the buck to some one else to deal with the problem. While it may indeed be management's ultimate responsibility to sack the 'bad eggs', you, your well meaning colleagues and your Association could offer to assist management in identifying and dealing with those of your professional brethren who can't cut today's mustard. You might be able to even negotiate an outcome that improves on ... the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with

I wish you good luck in your negotiations with Mr Dixon. But you'll need to demonstrate a significant improvement in attitude and customer service before you'll get me and mine to strap a QF aircraft to our backsides in the foreseeable future - not because of flight deck and engineering skills, but because of my experiences at the hands of cabin staff who clearly don't have their heart in what they do – luv.

May I respectfully suggest that, rather than just whinge here in an anonymous forum, you and your colleagues do some research into what actually constitutes Worlds' Best Practice cabin service, as practiced by some QF competitors. When you can then see why I (and others) put our custom elsewhere, you'll be better equipped to negotiate with QF management the necessary changes in work practices and attitudes to match the competition. Who knows, you might even get a pay rise, too.

And then you might see me again luv - and with no apology for the familiarity!

[GalleyHag]

Argus

There is a forum for SLF I think, maybe that is more appropriate for your skill and qualification level.

You are right though $82K is very small.

You will be pleased to know though, there are many former solicitors working as cabin crew which is obviously according to you "the most basic professional qualifications". As cabin crew couldnt possibly have a brain or any other life before their flying career.

Argus, I can see why you are not, nor have you ever been employed by any airline.

Best keep studying though for those qualification and one day just one day you might get there.

[Argus]

What a piece of personal vitriol! I must have struck a raw nerve or two, and hit paydirt. When all else fails, engage 'abuse' mode!

... working as cabin crew which is obviously according to you "the most basic professional qualifications".

With respect, that's not what I said.

As cabin crew couldnt possibly have a brain or any other life before their flying career.


Also with respect, I didn't say that, either.



Argus, I can see why you are not, nor have you ever been employed by any airline.


I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to resort to such an irrelevant remark. Personal denigration is no substitute for relevant facts and adds little to the advancement of the argument.

Best keep studying though for those qualification and one day just one day you might get there.

Likewise, this makes no positive contribution whatsoever to your (weak) argument.

You will be pleased to know though, there are many former solicitors working as cabin crew

This statement does not surprise me. The Law is a tough profession and a hard taskmaster. Many graduate after a minimum of 5 years Uni slog only to find that either the unrelenting grind at the top end of town or the constant financial and professional pressure of running a small practice is not to their liking. I hope that those of your colleagues who are legally trained are obtaining a greater degree of job satisfaction than you appear to derive from your vocation.

I suggest you look at the discussion on the Cabin Crew thread from enthusiastic Australians keen to obtain FA employment. If you are so jaundiced with your current situation, why don't you look for something else more to your liking, and let some other Australian have a job opportunity. That chip on your shoulder must be very heavy!

[GalleyHag]

Like I said there is a forum for SLF.

Excellent computer skills with the quotes though!!

[Buster Hyman]

Ladies and Gentlemen.

Argus is just discovering what Crewing officers, the world over, have known for years!

:}

[stickwithit]

Argus,
In my opinion $82K is not small, it's huge.. Actually I think the $5K or more that a family spends on a once or twice in a lifetime holiday is a lot of money (especially to them!) I don't think anyone would realistically dispute that. Have you actually flown Air Canada though? The seat pitch on their 767 is worse than any other I've seen, and the FAs wouldn't give out any more soft drink and definitely no wine as apparently they were trying to save money (I kid you not!) And one of them had been flying for 42yrs! On 6 sectors with AC, the worst I've seen bar none!

Oz Ocker?!?
Surely just a windup? A paid holiday? Maybe you're just jealous of these FAs I think, would you prefer them to just transit and come back.. That would be better wouldn't it. A few years back the pilots trilled 39hr slips in London, and they were hounded down as they were extremely taxing on the body... You don't get a good sleep until the second night anyway... These were popular with the extreme minority...

The FAs aren't asking for a 15% payrise or a massive increase in conditions... All they are trying to ensure is that any future expansion in the company involves them, they keep their jobs in Australia and that they can maintain current conditions for those to follow in the future. Is that too much to ask for?? Isn't that all anyone wants? As happened with Jetconnect, Jetstar etc etc to the QF pilot body... QF L/H FAs.. don't let it happen to you! Good Luck :ok:

[Argus]

Thanks for your support.

Have you actually flown Air Canada though?

My wife and I flew Air Canada business class from Sydney to Honolulu in September 2002 as part of a Star Alliance round the world trip that included North American destinations, Manchester and Paris. The aircraft was an elderly B767, but was clean and comfortable nevertheless. Food was average. No shortage of North American wines. Couldn't fault the two male FAs who were very well mannered, had a totally customer focused approach to reasonable requests and were available for the entire flight. I recall writing to Air Canada after the trip and saying so.

Haven't flown with Air Canada since, so I can't give an up to date assessment. However, based on previous experiences, I'd fly AC again.

Actually I think the $5K or more that a family spends on a once or twice in a lifetime holiday is a lot of money (especially to them!) I don't think anyone would realistically dispute that.

Totally agree. And that family is fully entitled to receive value for its hard earned $s, too.

[Pinky the pilot]

Not that it has the slightest thing to do with this thread but......
$82K is just over three and a half years wages for me picking Oranges!:mad: :mad:
It's all relative I guess.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[sirjfp]

wow, things are getting a little heated here.! I think I may be well qualified to make a comment having been a long term flight attendant/ cabin manager with Ansett , now an ambulance paramedic in his early second year of dedicated univertsity study ,as well as being on the road as a practicing paramedic.

Even when I am fully qualified after 3 years , unless I do heaps of overtime ( usually involving 14 hour night shifts ) my wage will still come up about 15 grand a year light of what I earned as a C/M with Ansett . When I tell my fellow paramedics what I was earning in my previous occupation they are well and truly gobsmacked. To add to that , my Q.F friends were earning more than me!

I am enjoying my life outside the industry and find it interesting to look into it from another perspective.

I have pondered whether or not my new profession is not paid as much as it shoud be , or whether my previous occupation was overpaid , particularly given the qualification and skill base it required. I suspect the latter is the vase

I know that some F/A's out there will rabbit on about the stresses of dealing with the general public, being there for emergency reasons etc etc, but compared to what I am doing now that was bloody easy !


I think that the wage scales at V.B and jet* are probably more indicative of the true worth of the flight attendant role.

Although it seems rough that Q.F is seeking offshore ( read cheaper ) labour overseas , I can fully understand them wanting to do it when the old Q.F wage scales are so high in comparison to other aussie based airlines.

I was also a bit shocked when I last visited my brother in Hong Kong , where his business is now based , that he has stopped using Q.F internationally , though still flies business domestically here with them , because of indifferent and inconsistent service levels. He spends heaps on travel ( as much as you argus)
He is not much to complain much - he did that once and it made no difference . He just quietly took his business elsewhere

I can honestly say that for 20 years at ansett , and I did suspect it at the time , that I was underworked and overpaid . By crikey it was good while it lasted .... I should have realised that nothing that good will last forever !


Just my 2 bob's worth from both sides of the fence!

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

Sirjfp, your honesty is refreshing.

Sadly the rampant unionists at QF will not see it until it's too late. Their pride will not allow them to admit what you are saying is absolutely correct

I can't wait for the showdown

[Mr Seatback 2]

JBM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you work as a FA for DJ? Under an Agreement negotiated by the FAAA?

If so, the irony is hilarious.

[Buster Hyman]

sirjfp...Does the jfp stand for Johnny Fart Pants? Glad to hear you are doing well after AN, I hope you are happy.:ok:

[stickwithit]

JBM
Interesting, so you're DJ cabin crew? Just making that assumption form one of the previous posts. So your reason for wanting to see the FAAA have a showdown is what??? Jealousy? So that you can jump in and do that job for cheaper because that is what you think it's worth?? Don't kid yourself. That is how Virgin and Jetstar have gathered so much momentum and have dragged down the standard and integrity of the aviation industry FOREVER!

[Ultra]

I've travelled on co. flights where cabin crew provided excellent in-flight service and equally, on other flights where it was obvious that the crew were having a bad day and (putting it nicely) were an embarassment. It's essential, nonetheless, to accept that in a service industry, personal matters aren't permitted to affect our frontline performance - it's a luxury we don't have and the concept needs to be embraced by all staff, not just the Flight Attendant community.
Had this been the norm, then the current image problems wouldn't be in question and salary wouldn't be the primary focus.

The job of maintaining a service and company-minded objective however, would be [B]considerably[B] easier for all staff, if the leadership example was consistent and emanated from the top.

For many years now, QF staff have been provided much information on the need for restraint, to be battle-ready for the onslaught of the LCC culture, emerging international airlines and the like. When many others have failed, QF have prospered, earned international awards and managed to come through the darkest period affecting our industry.

Why has this been achievable? Company restructuring alone?

In the end, behind the facts and figures, the answer will mostly lie in the team-spirit of a compliant workforce who's work input:financial reward ratio is considerably less than the results achieved and who collectively and genuinely wish to see the company survive and prosper.
The downstream reality for us however, is that despite responding positively to our senior management's beckonings in recent years and despite realising record earnings as a result of unrewarded work input, we are faced with the threat of more job outsourcing and to non-Aust employees, adding salt to a deep wound. I'd suggest this is an inappropriate way of dealing with staff in the context of recent successes and does go a long way to justifying poor morale.

One could be forgiven for thinking that management's thirst for efficiency and sometimes unjustified change, will never be satisified.

Rather than adopting the conciliatory stance, the take-it-or-else corporate culture of (any) management is short-sighted. The outsourcing of work, creation of new companies to bypass IR issues, unresolved EBA matters - will all ultimately lead to the greater peril of staff morale problems downstream and this is now widespread and a serious problem at QF. I'm sure that I'm not stating anything new.

Financial return to the shareholder has been touted here consistently as the driver of such a drastic step as the need to send more local jobs overseas. As anyone with a small interest in the sharemarket will know, share price often doesn't reflect the performance of an organisation and despite QF's good and improving performance, its share price remains mostly stagnant. I often ponder, to what degree of efficiency change must we (or any publicly-listed company employee for that matter) stoop, in order to satisfy the emotive, irrational and unquenchable share holder appetite?

So it begs the question, in QF's case: will saving $20M by sending these jobs overseas, make any difference to share price?
Regrettably, airlines will remain, in my view, a poor investment in comparison to the other staples, if financial return is the only shareholder motivation. Airlines are however, an essential part of society's structure and must remain, despite share prices and standing.

BCD, Argus, and to other corporate customers, while I don't presume to be in the league of those you've already referred to within the organisation, I'm sorry at your dissatisfaction on the occasions mentioned and hope you'll provide your return business. As you've taken the time to make you opinions known, I ask you to also respect mine and perhaps extend a small degree of understanding to the staff difficulties.

BCD, I sometimes wonder what our boss honestly thinks of his employees so when you next share a beer with our CEO, perhaps you might pose him the question of how he and maybe all others at his end of the job market, justify their financial return vs contribution to their respective company's successes? As I said earlier, sound leadership comes from the top - it's essential to look after your staff if the company expects to succeed - not beat them with a stick after they've correctly responded to your wishes.

Outsourcing of work overseas shouldn't be the first step in the financial solution, if, in fact, the problem is serious enough in the first place, to warrant this sort of handling.

Loss of jobs to Australian workers IS a serious matter and one which is worth defending ahead of share price.

[Kaptin M]

sirjfp, your observations may well be correct, however, in spite of the REQUIREMENT to have F/A's onboard, they are also employed in the service industry, where customers of the airline EXPECT some form of inflight "attention".
The air,ines realise this, and charge accordingly, thereby making them ABLE to pay the salaries to F/A's, that they do.

As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service - as compared with QANTAS, which offers 3 classes of travel - that could, perhaps, be viewed as one reason why they are on lesser salaries than their QF, and past AN counterparts.

[yellow rocket]

I think that the wage scales at V.B and jet* are probably more indicative of the true worth of the flight attendant role.

they are also employed in the service industry....As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service


Keep sh*tting in your own nest guys. You do it so well.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

In my current role, I have absolutely no choice as to whether the FAAA negotiates the contract or not. I do not give that rabble one cent of my money and when the topic comes up at work, I advise others against wasting their dough.

I have previously held many diversified roles under many different types of agreements. I am doing the current role to give myself a break from the usually stressful jobs I usually stumble in. Giving myself a break, so to speak, in a role where I really don't need to think when I go to work.

It is for those around me who view the job as a more longterm prospect that I encourage a good employer/employee relationship as a better option for their long term job security than fostering a good union/unionist relationship.

When I read here people complaining that FA's at QF are in some way hard done by, it just reinforces to me how out of touch they really are with the real world. Just the fact they think the employee collective can dictate to the employer on what are essentially business decisions is quite out of touch.

The only unionists I have met at work have a reputation as pathetic and they have needed the FAAA to save their skin in the past. I flew with an FA recently who has had 40 sick days since XMAS.. and openly admits they are all a fraud, but went on to tell me she's not worried because she's in the union. She also would love to work for QF!!!

It's trash like that the union spends it money on.

:sad:

[Argus]

A balanced post with several valid points.

As I said in an earlier post, QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.

One the other side are the unions. Their role is to protect and, if possible enhance the employment conditions of their members. Some award conditions stretch back to the Public Service era. In the eyes of management, these are troublesome and should be removed.

Then there's a company culture which, on any view, is one of distrust between employees and management.

QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. The union response is predictable enough - no way. It's like ballroom dancing - each side knows the steps. So negotiations start. Each side has some ambit in its various claims. Over a period of time there will be some posturing from both sides before an agreement is reached. Each side has something to lose and something to gain. All industrial disputes are settled eventually - the amount of time in dispute being directly proportional to the hairy chestedness of the protagonists.

That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. My own views are on this thread, and well known.

It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on how to make disenchanted staff redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some financial assistance from QANTAS.

Consequential vacancies are filled by enthusiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure, dividends to shareholders increase and hopefully the share price goes up.

And some where in all of the above, there has to be some bridge building between management and staff.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

JBM:

You said it all really. 'You don;t think when you go to work'.

If you told me that I wouldn't employ you at QF either. Most companies are looking for a little more in their customer focussed roles than people who don't think.

It seems you don;t think too much before posting here.

And that you don;t understand how Industrial relations work. Tell me this - why don't you work for 10K less than you get now ? And then 10K less than that? Your blessed managers would love it wouldn't they?

Tool.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

Oh! It's such a mentally demanding job isn't it!

It is fascinating when people resort to insult when their argument is so hollow, as Argus has succinctly put in previous posts.

Go on, strike for your rights. Go ahead. I can't wait to see the outcome, which is assured. Your employer will get their way. The flights will still take off. And the public will turn their backs on you.

Good luck as some will need it when they find themselves in the real world.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Nothing personal about it chump. You said it.

It's obvioulsy not mentally demanding for you because you dont put any effort in to thinking about your job - it's just a paycheck. You basically said it yourself.

The occassions I am forced to fly Virgin it is noticeable among many of your peers. I used to bag out Qantas about their service, but it has improved (at least domestically) of late - and compared to what I have got from Virgin, ground and air, it is always 1st choice - often the fare is $10-20 more, and regularly cheaper. It is $20 well spent anyway.

The argument isn't about that anyway - it's about grasping how you have to negotiate in the corporate-friendly IR rules that George W. Howard's government have created. I just don't think you get it. Nothing personal. (Maybe you have given it the same amount of thought you givr your job?)

My going on strike won't do much for the FAAA - I'm not a flight attendant.

Another day of global peace where nothing much happens. No war, no inflation, no violence, no rainforest. That's a ****su Tonka day.

[Argus]

The argument isn't about that anyway - it's about grasping how you have to negotiate in the corporate-friendly IR rules that George W. Howard's government have created.

There’s the nub of it. One the one hand, the “can’t touch me I’m part of the Union” attitude that even previous Labor governments attempted to distance themselves from.

And on the other, the acolytes of the H.R.Nicholls Society (see
here (http://www.hrnicholls.com.au) who would have the Australian Labour Market deregulated even further.

One of the reasons for Tony Blair's previous electoral success in the UK was his sidelining of organised labour and its influence over Party policy making.

And one of Mark Latham's Achilles heels is the fear held by many in the community that a vote for the Labor Party means a return to government being directed by the ACTU.

I'm no apologist for the Howard Government. But, as a small business person and an employer, I welcome the opportunity to deal directly with my staff to our mutual advantage without Trades Hall breathing down our necks.

The situation with large corporations and bureaucracies is somewhat different. There's no doubt that employers, both public and private sector, are under more pressure than ever before to improve profitability and efficiency. Unions and employees display the classic symptoms of alienation when confronted with employer demands for change - unions because their raision d’etre is threatened and employees because of the threat to job security.

Unfortunately, only diamonds are forever. Outside of the public service and large corporations, union membership in Australia is at an all time low. Even if Labor wins the next election here, I can't see Mark Latham getting back into bed with the Swanson Street mafia - the potential loss of electorate support is a risk I don’t think he’d be prepared to take.

It’s against such a backdrop that QANTAS and the ASU enter negotiations for a new EBA. Each party wants something from the other. Ultimately, after some bargaining, a compromise will be reached. Who concedes what will be a test of brinkmanship. But both management and the union have an opportunity to agree on some much needed changes which, if adopted, might give some certainty to travellers like me that my fare with QANTAS is money well spent. If this comes about, I’ll gladly return to the QF fold.

[Left2primary]

sirjfp,

am I correct in assuming you were an Ansett DOMESTIC FA?

If that is the case may I respectfully suggest that you are NOT qualified to opine on matters relating to INTERNATIONAL FA's.

10,11 12 and 13 day trips,19 hour unplanned TOD's, 12 hour time differences, jetlag and more than 6 months of the year spent away from home.

Do you know anything of these?

L2P

[Mr Seatback 2]

JBM

So why don't you negotiate an AWA between yourself and Virgin? I'm sure your management would reward you in kind with the same conditions as outlined in your Agreement...not.

As for having a go at the FAAA re:representing your colleagues, and their actions, the FAAA (like any union) can't always defend the indefensible. Your 'friend with the 40 days fraudulent sick leave' will eventually be disposed of, just like the hundreds of other FA's at Virgin that get terminated.

The FAAA defends it's members - and sadly, it has no control over their behaviour as individuals.

Saying all your unionists at work (and I'm referring to the term 'all' here) is quite damaging - since I happen to know some of these people personally, and most have been promoted in their time with DJ. None of these people have been disciplined in any way at DJ - so I'd be careful with the sweeping statements.

You're free to have your opinion, as am I. However, as someone that practises it right now, you can have a good employer/unionist relationship for the benefit of all. And it hasn't blocked my promotion within my airline either.

[sirjfp]

buster,

you are indeed correct . The one and same.

L2P.

Indeed, the conditions are different for longhaul . I have a neighbour who flew longhaul up until 11 months ago, as well as a couple of friends still in the longhaul game.


However , although these conditions are " harsh " on the personal life , when it comes to payday they have no compaints .

They do very well financially compared to most other long haul cabin crew around the world.

Don't get me wrong here . I hope these wages and conditions can be sustained . I merely say that the world is changing out there . As rough as it seems If Dixon can get away with cheaper labour overseas to do the same job then he will . I don't agree with the morality of this but it is possible that this scenario will become reality in the near future.

[Buster Hyman]

Ahhh, Jolly good sirjfp! :ok:

L2P..Whilst sirjfp may have done only infrequent OS trips, I can vouch for his ability to speak on matters relating to the FAAA.;) If one can only discuss this matter when one has been a "long haul" FA, then I shall respectfully withdraw from this thread...I would also expect that you should refrain from making comments about Management issues as you may not have the credentials to discuss them. ;) :p

[Yawn]

Left2Primary you said:
If that is the case may I respectfully suggest that you are NOT qualified to opine on matters relating to INTERNATIONAL FA's.
10,11 12 and 13 day trips,19 hour unplanned TOD's, 12 hour time differences, jetlag and more than 6 months of the year spent away from home.

Surely this is the perfect argument for outsourcing FAs. Let me take you through your argument: If FAs where based in London then you would only get to Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok or China (?). This means less time away from home, less time zone change, less jet lag and less mega sectors being on your feet for 14 hours (with a couple off).

Therefore less need for three days in a hotel (one will do), and according to your own argument, you will have a better standard of life and will accept less pay for that better life. How about domestic FA pay? Or paramedics pay?

Doesn’t everybody win – less away time and less jet lag for FAs and less wages outlay, less hotel accommodation and less dead heading for the QF shareholders? HR theory suggests that pay rate is a poor predictor for happy employees. Perhaps better lifestyle, not better pay, would make FAs happier with their job. This would leed to better service outcomes.

I think you better discuss strategy with the FAAA before going down this line.

Personally I think being an FA is a trap. Once down this road there is no way off. With all the shift work you cannot study your way into another job and no one will accept any other unskilled worker for 60,000 to 80,000 pa. (Sorry to be direct but unless you have another formal qualification such as a degree that's how the outside world will view you). One of my friends has a HR degree and works for QF at $40,000 pa. Another has an B.Bus. and a MBA and works for a Melbourne council and get $45,000, so she works at a Dan Murphy call centre part-time so that she can save for a house- she has an MBA! Comparitively a senior, hard working QF CSM can earn more that the average GP who has seven years of study (at a bulk billing clinic).

How much is a FA worth? Why did you pick 12 percent?

[ferris]

Why get into "what is an FA worth"? It is irrelevent at this point. They are worth whatever they can get, whatever the market will bear. If you are jealous of them, get over it. Or get out your CV. Damn right they make good money. So what's the problem? My brother is a tradesman, and I'll guarantee he makes more than any pilot in oz. Is that fair? If he stuffs up, he gets a call-back and loses some money in lost productivity. He certainly doesn't kill 400 poeple. Is that fair? Who cares. More power to him. It's what he gets. Just look in the newspaper if you want to see examples of seemingly disparit remuneration. Is a currency trader worth 10 times the pay of a nurse? Maybe, if you take into consideration ALL aspects, such as job satisfaction.

The issue is the jobs going overseas. Some people here really need to get out more, and see what sort of money you can pay people 'overseas'.

Argus made a very sensible post. And someone else mentioned 'morality', a word seemingly out of fashion. Certainly in corporate circles.

[Kaptin M]

Both you and I left Oz for o/s, ferris for possibly different reasons.
The reason we are STILL o/s (I would hazard a guess in your case), is because of the disparity in salaries between Australia and offshore countries.
There are a myriad of Aussies working outside their birth country for FAR MORE money than is offered to them back home.

Surely there must be a message to the Geoff Dixons of Oz, that if non-Australian companies are willing to encourage Aussies to leave Australia, come and work for them for salaries 2, 3, 5 times the rate being paid in Oz, then there must be something a little "sus" about workers who offer their services for 1/2 or 1/3 LESS than Aussies working in Oz!
Superficially, it might SEEM that the work gets done - but don't expect to replace the Aussie worker on a 1-1 basis.
Check out how many MORE (lesser paid) non-Australians are needed to do a similar job.
Scratch the surface a bit more, and ask some non-routine questions, to see if the cheaper labour can think "outside the box".

What looks good in theory, in this instance, is going to cost you MORE in the very short term, Geoff.

And the Australian population in general - through increased social benefit handouts - down the track, in the medium term.

Farming Australian jobs out overseas is a matter of NATIONAL CONCERN - not a short term, bonus-orientated ploy by GM's greedy for an extra $MILLION or $2 MILLION in the next financial year.

Decisions such as these affect ALL Australians!

[skyhero]

ferris, YOU are right on the money. Heh Heh.
Oh by the way I am not an airline employee.

News: The QF shortlist Has been activated.

Several ' friends' of mine who have been waiting on the 'shortlist' for over eighteen months have been called up by QF .............wait for it........for An ELEVEN MONTH CONTRACT with QF/LH.

NO prospect of future employment with QF, AFTER the contract ends. What has recruitment and subsequent employment come to in Oz? Did the FAAA have any say in this? How does the RAT get away with this?

Some in order to accept , (had no choice) gave current employers only a weeks notice in order to start training school soon. Several schools planned ASAP.

Is it part of QFs strategy? again highlighting topics in this forum. Someone somewhere needs to expose all this cr%p. QF is on a roll. Let's just sit back and see them get away with it.

"The beast cannot be stopped'


:yuk:

[rakow1]

Greetings!

I've come into this discussion rather late

Kaptain M, I find your comments about the o/s salaries interesting; especially concerning the potential outsourcing of FAs to London. Who's to say that the outsourcing to London will not be similar to that done in Thailand, where the FAs are not Qantas employees but that of a service company. These FAs are paid in Thai Bahts and do not have the same award conditions as Qantas FAs, but fly as one of them. Does't that make the argument of higher o/s salaries o/s moot?

Could this be the real reason that Qantas has floated this caper?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Approach this with a broader outlook - don't focus in on whether you either hve had a bad experience on a Qantas flight, didn't get accepted in to Qantas as a F/A, are a QF pilot who got a knock back on a slip (or a cold cuppa) or whatever...

How much is it worth to keep jobs / skills / opportunities in Australia?

What is the point of outsourcing every industry to Mumbai / Bangkok or Auckland if it leave nobody in Australia with an income to pay for this new 'cheaper' product?

Where do you draw the line? Why not bring in cheaper surgeons? Maybe they will work for 1/2 the price - maybe a 1/3?

Why not base all the QF longhaul pilots in Bangkok - pay them in Baht? I mean - it's not rocket science is it?

Have you noticed how 'good' the service is with overseas call centres? I had to explain the intricacies of where an apartment building was located in a FNQ city last year when a parcel from FEDEX didn;t get delivered. It was all totally lost on the (local number) Fedex Office - probably because she was sitting in Luzon City!

This is about greed - not service levels. And not greed for shareholders - just for senior executives, who will parachute out before the empire crumbles completely. Havent we seen it all before?

[Mr.Buzzy]

Here here ****zu,

I hear you! I recently sold an item through the trading post to an Indian chap who was obviously very skint... He haggled and haggled....
Turns out this guy was employed by Telstra in India and had been seconded to OZ. His "provided" accomodation is over an hour commute to work and he says that his "8" hour days are typically 12 to 14 with no overtime and he is given a laptop to
"finish up" at home.
His parting words to me were that he was returning back to India for a rest and to work for a more reasonable company!

Whos going to stop this crap!

[rakow1]

I'm not disagreeing with you ****zu. It IS about greed; but more important it is the thin edge of the wedge.

Where and when will it stop? Maybe only when the whole of Qantas is outsourced! Then the "Spirit of Australia" can be just that - a spirit; with no body in Oz!