Qantas London base [Archive]

yellow rocket

20th Jun 2004, 09:21

caste (kãst): n :a social class separated from others by distinctions of hereditary rank or profession or wealth

Issues thus far...

In November 2002 Qantas advertised Flight Attendant positions in a variety of media - Casual, Fixed Term AND Permanent.

People who successfully completed each stage of the recruitment process were advised, by email at the 5th and final stage, that they were on a 'shortlist', hence the name 'Shortlister'.

For most, that Stage 5 email arrived in February 2003.

Before this it had been customary practice of QF to offer every 'Shortlister' a training date....

EXCEPT...

Since then...

In the last 8 months while telling 'Shortlisters' things such as clearly the current downturn in the airline industry are impacting on any immediate initial Flight Attendant training programs with in Qantas, Qantas has recruited, trained, and increased the number of crew employed on a Long Haul base in Auckland.

Under New Zealand employment law Qantas is their employer, regardless of the piece of paper AKL crew sign at Adecco. More fool them for putting up with being what is now a caste system of cabin crewing at Qantas. BKK caste and AKL caste, with the Australian based caste on top. For BKK and AKL caste, less pay, no staff travel (worth mentioning), no super, no health care, no MPG or MBT. No seniority, no entitlement to apply to be a CSS or CSM. God help them if they ask to do anything except galley.

Then there are the expanding MAM caste, and the latest, possibly bottom of the ladder '10 month' caste. Even the AKL caste get 3 year terms.

Qantas advertised jobs in Australia, ran a recruitment program, and placed people on an approved applicant list (shortlist) but has not followed through in good faith. The people who were first in line have not been offered training as is customary practice.

So now, training positions are being filled en masse for externals in AKL (3 year terms). And the airline wants to open a London base too so that it can end Australian crew overnighting in the UK.

25% of all cabin crew jobs to be offshore.

Interesting to see where things are in 12 months.

QANTASTIC

20th Jun 2004, 12:06

I felt i have to put my two cents worth here !! I think its important that a company such as Qantas hires crew of all backgrounds as Qantas does fly overseas to many countrys. We are lucky as we in Australia have all languages and cultures here. Why go oversea ..?? CHEAP LABOUR !! I do however not agree with QF getting cheaper labour overseas and not giving anything to these people in way of basic pay,superanuation and staff travel! To make matters worse Qantas markets itself as an Australian ICON !! It will be great one day to get on board and be greated by locals from London !! Get the feel of British Airways and then transit BKK and oh !! I feel like wee on board Thai international!! There is nothing Australian about that! Fly to America via Auckland ...Get on board and opps I though we were on Air NewZealand! The public are very passionate abot Qantas and people only pay that extra bit of money at the moment because they like to feel at home when they board the aircraft!! If they dont get this they WILL choose to fly the asian carries !! Its cheaper and YES the same crew on board!! I think this is the most important phase of history that the crew BOTH Long and short HAUL stick together as well as all the other Qantas staff !! Its just an examle of what is happening to the current short list people. They had gone for an interview with Qantas advising them that it it for FULL time employmant as per the form that peopel completed on interview then get offerd 10 months!! I thinks its about time the externals all started to speak up media local news etc..TRUST me Qantas does not like publicity!! Its sad they are getting so many people using them to work contract work and then flick them of !! All that hard work for nothing !! Using people !! I am not saying its bad for everybody but it not great for a lot of staff out there !! Not sure what thye will be doing next year!! No sick leave !! NO holidays !! Anyway thats my bit for today !! All Im saying is stick together and take it further ! ! Qantas wants people that are passionate and I tgink a lot of ppruners are !! Lets shoe them that Qantas is Australian and that it should stay Australian!!!

You splitter

20th Jun 2004, 13:00

ib16uk - Either you didnt bother reading the posts above or your b:mad: y brave!!:p

I can understand where you lot are coming from. Every time I pick up a phone to speak to BA or BT I end up talking to someone in India!

I am some what surprised tough that this would be seen as saving money. How much are you guys on. The cost of living in London is horrendous so why Qantas thing there would be floods of cabin crew over here working for next to nothing is beyond me! :hmm:

solution1

20th Jun 2004, 13:23

Computers?....Reservations?.......Is he for real???

jasmin

20th Jun 2004, 22:09

From what I have heard the base in London will comprise of 60% Australians ( who currently work for QF and can opt to take a basing in London under QF sponsorship ie. working visa etc for those not EU passport holders) and 40% will be ( by requirement) locals ( whatever nationality) recruited from there. Also, I have heard that they salary will be excellent - not comparing at all to the lower wages of the UK counterparts). The main saving Qantas will be making wil,l be about 25 million dollars in overnight accommodation costs- per year.

qfmike737

21st Jun 2004, 02:22

Could you imagine the kind of trouble that could happen with UK based crews earning less then what other QF workers in Australia are earning doing the same job? I personaly think it's a recipe for bitterrness between the different based crews.

The UK based crew are simply going be to paid less. It's cheap labour!

If someone from the UK wanted to work for QF they are welcome and should come and be based in Australia and do what all QF workers do in the same boat (I know there are some already based in other countries as cheaper labour) no matter what country they're from. Many passionate flight attendants do this already with other airlines like Emirates and it does them well!

Yes at the end of the day Qantas is a business with shareholders and yes it does have to make money. So shouldn't a business invest in it's greatest assets in a "PEOPLE" industry. The flight attendant spends more time with the customer then anyone else and a happy flight attendant between a long flight between Singapore and London is what makes more money. This can mean the difference between losing and gaining customers who have the choice of flying many other carriers from AUS to UK or other EU ports.

If they wanted to make cut backs they should make them elsewhere QF workers from all parts of the company could think of zillions of smart ways things could be done cheaper.

Floaty

21st Jun 2004, 14:01

Hello Biscuit, QFMike, all...

Reading your posts, one question comes to my mind... what do you think we feel like to be called "cheap labour"??
If you guys were to relocate and make more money because of that, I don't see why the " local cheap labour " (moi eventually?) would complain about it. If you do the sacrifice to leave everything behind for a few years, for the love of your job, for the experience or whatever reason you have to relocate, then congratulations! You deserve to earn a little more!

As you may already know, I was married to an Aussie for 2 years but I recently lost my australian visa and had to say goodbye to both the country and any possible job there.
Thankfully I happen to have a UK passport and here in the UK I got the opportunity to find work as a cabin crew. Yes the salary is not great, I've been so far taking home a net pay of £1200 per month (approx. AUD 2800 - doesn't sound that cheap to me!) and trust me, I would definitely apply if there was an opportunity to work for QANTAS as I really enjoy working with Aussies, no matter if the job will never bring me back to Australia. This doesn't mean I want someone of the crew in Australia to lose his job because of me! :uhoh:

Finally, I was thinking about Virgin Atlantic. It seems they'll start flying to Oz early December. Don't you think VA will expand their base in Australia and take few more Aussies onboard to work for them? Don't you think your "locals" will have better opportunities? How many crew from Virgin Blue will be transferred to Long-Haul?? Do you think the U.K. crew would complain about this? Not sure........

I see your point guys and I respect you buckets, but I think we need to be a little more open minded. My 2 cents!

FJ :ok:

VS77

21st Jun 2004, 14:47

Good point floaty!

It is more than normal that BA/VS/BD or any other UK based airline hire french/spanish/italian crew as they (we, I'm dutch...) don't need a visa to work in the UK.

We call that the European Union... ;)

Concerning Virgin they have organised a kind of work swop:

Aussie from VBlue working for VA and VA crew working for VB.

Isn't that great and rewarding?

Cart_tart

21st Jun 2004, 15:52

I think a lot of you are missing the point.
We want jobs kept in Australia. QF are doing it to save $$. Or maybe it's because if they make a better profit by saving those $$ Mr Dixon gets a whole lot more cash in his already big fat back pocket!! It's his own personal agenda!
You can only work for one company if you want to work longhaul out of Australia. And thats QF (that includes Australian cause you're an employee of the QF group!).
Unfortunately Floaty, I don't have the priviledge of having a UK passport and also living on 2800 a month with the cost of living over there is really not so appealling to me!
There is also the small fact that there are a good number of Australians on a "list" here for a job with the big Q. Remember we've been told that we're suitable to work for them & when positions are available then we should get a start date.
Funny that positions open up in AKL & BKK and now it seems London will be next. Most of us have been offered nothing. Yet some have been offered a measly 10 mth contract which won't be renewed as they're hoping to have the bloody london base opened by then. Which in black and white means that JOBS WILL BE TAKEN FROM US!
It seems to be forgotten by many of you that Qantas is the "AUSTRALIAN AIRLINE" and the "SPIRIT OF AUSTRALIA" Won't be that if we have a whole lot of whinging poms working for them complaining that they don't earn as much as their Aussie counterparts and they're tired because their minimum rest is shorter than that of the Aussies.
I work for a regional over here & I will fight this to the death through the unions, as will many others. Not purely for the selfish fact that I want MY job that has been dangling in front of my nose for the past 2 years, but because I want to secure it for others in Australia that have the dream that I have had my entire life.
It's ok for you to sit back there in the UK and say you'll do it for less money and lesser conditions. I'm sure you can do a lot worse with some of the budgo airlines over there. If you don't like it there are a billion other budgo airlines you can get a seasonal contract with. You also have something called the EU (as VS77 pointed out). We don't have that luxury over here - have you noticed that we're about 24 hours travelling time away from you!???! We're a one and only country sitting over here with 2 major airlines. Not a whole lot of options if you want to work as an FA.
Work for your own airline and leave ours alone!

Wirraway

22nd Jun 2004, 04:29

Tues "Sydney Morning Herald" Latest News

Qantas to establish London base for flight staff
June 22, 2004 - 1:39PM

Qantas Airways Ltd today said it will establish a base for 400 international flight attendant in London from June 2005, saving $18 million annually.

"As a global airline with very significant offshore operations we cannot continue to source all our people and services in Australia alone," Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said.

"We must strive for an internationally competitive cost base against many competitors who, through government ownership and subsidies, do not operate to the same economic disciplines as Qantas."

He said the airline's existing Australia-based cabin crew would be given priority for the London positions, and that there would be no job losses as a result of the new base.

Qantas also said it would establish a Brisbane base in early 2005, where 250 international cabin crew jobs would be relocated.

"Regardless of the take-up by existing staff for positions in London, our current growth means we are in a position to utilise all our current personnel and to grow some," Mr Dixon said.

He said setting up the the London base would save Qantas $18 million a year through rostering efficiencies and reduced accommodation and allowance costs.

"These savings, and others we need to continue to push through the company, are essential if Qantas is to continue to grow and prosper," he said.

Qantas currently has more than 4,000 international flight attendants in bases in Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Auckland and Bangkok, with 94 per cent of all employees sourced in Australia.

Mr Dixon flagged the decision to establish a London base a month ago, when he told the National Press Club the airline could be more efficient if it sent jobs offshore.

Later, an internal memo reportedly showed Mr Dixon planned to relocate 25 per cent of the airline's cabin crew - or about 840 staff - to London in order to cut hotel and meal costs.

Today Mr Dixon said the London base would be operated by a wholly owned UK subsidiary, and salary levels in London would compare "well" with those offered by other airlines with UK-based crew.

Flight attendants would be able to return to their positions in Australia after they completed two-to-three year contracts in London.

He said it was "difficult to estimate", but that Qantas expected "existing Australia-based flight attendants would fill the majority of the London jobs".

He believed the new Brisbane base would attract widespread support from existing crew, and said international services to and from Brisbane would grow considerably in coming years.

Qantas shares were two cents lower at $3.40.

AAP

=========================================

Bodum

22nd Jun 2004, 07:29

Biscuit chucker..

Interesting memo? Where did you see that? I am shorthaul. Would be interested to know if I took the 3 year LWOP to London option if seniority would carry and acrue whilst I was gone. Currently if you go on LWOP I believe your seniority continues to acrue, so cant see why not. If you hear anything post it and let us know.

Continued good luck to our shortlisters here, sorry this has had to happen.

Cheers

GalleyHag

22nd Jun 2004, 23:46

There should be no need to employ U.K. citizens if there are not enough crew to make up the 400, they should look at internals, regionals, jetstar etc. There is also plenty of Australians willing to relocate to London for these positions.

Now that the decision has been made lets see Australians fill the 400 positions not anyone else.

The FAAA has been very quite on this issue.

Also with a base of only 400 Australian crew would still be required to operate up to London wouldnt they?

Left2primary

23rd Jun 2004, 02:13

Galleyhag,

the internationaal FAAA representent the interest of Australian based international FA's.

If Lesley Grants past history with Air NZ is anything to go by this London base will be the thin edge of the wedge on her continuing attack on FA conditions.

If you have an opportunity have a talk to Air NZ or Freedom Air FA's about the decimation to their conditions that she was responsible for.

Moral, service standards and care for the LONGTERM success of the airline meant nothing to her. It was all about HER performance bonuses and to hell with the rest.

Lets hope that QF doesnt get the same destructive dose of, " I dont give a f@ck because my job isnt worth having anymore" attitude that was understandably prevalent at Air NZ during those times.

I understand those at Air NZ have spent the last 5 or 6 years clawing back the conditions she removed.

If rumours are anything to go by it seems she was recieving multiple death threats from the FA body such was the poisonous and unnecessary environment SHE created.

Lets get this straight.

This base represents a 1.8% improvement to the bottom line of the worlds most profible airline.

It is a MASSIVE attack on the largest employee group in the airline and a HUGE slap in the face given the success LONGHAUL FA's have largely delivered and continue to do so.

This is going to be a fight to the death and if the feeling that I see out on line is any indication, things are going to get VERY [and unnecessarily] nasty.

Fa's know that this base represents NOTHING more than pure corporate greed and if it gets up, their careers will never be the same again.

Fa's may still travel to London under QF's initial proposal but be aware that AKL based Air NZ FA's DO NOT travel beyond LA to LHR.
That flying is done by the LHR base FA's of which 80% are UK nationals.

L2P

P.S. "Qantas, The Worlds Greediest Airline".

gigs

23rd Jun 2004, 08:09

Guys,does anyone know what the U K government thinks of the proposal for many Aussies to be based in the U K. Buy that i mean and as example only is Thai airways moving 300 to 350 of its crew to be based in OZ. to save on slip money and accom..?????????Example only and hope you all get my drift even though my typing skills suc/q tee./as we all know.

Miss Pam Ann

23rd Jun 2004, 09:14

Now, this a just a curious question...pleeeeeeese don't beat Miss Pam Ann up....

Would any of (you) "Shortlisters" from OZ (I hate this label thing....but everyone else uses it), take the offer of a base in London for long-haul if you were offered???

MISS PAMela ANNderson.... xxx ;) ;) ;)

Miss Pam Ann

23rd Jun 2004, 09:49

:ok: :ok: :ok: MARSHA

Good for you honey!!!!

MISS PAMela ANNderson xxx ;) ;) ;)

Flying_Sarah747

23rd Jun 2004, 12:50

I would NOT take the London base if it was offered by QF. I'm working as crew for BA based in London, and I really miss home. London is so different from Australia, nothing like what I expected, and the only thing that keeps me here is cause I love my job at BA, and the money is good. I'm sure the money QF would offer would hardly allow you to live! I was just kicked off the short list too, after 18 months, plus all the money they made us spend to get medicals etc done, and am VERY dissapointed. I love working for BA, but as I said, I wanted to go home, but I guess that's just not gonna happen now. QF has lost a lot of good people. Their loss, and ours I suppose. :( :sad: :{

jerrystinger

24th Jun 2004, 17:30

All I will say is that BA is looking at cost cutting measures for its longhaul cabin crew and the QANTAS measures announced are the beginning of a ONEWORLD venture that will change things for crews forever and save the companies millions!

I've already said too much.

capt.cynical

25th Jun 2004, 11:46

I feel very sorry for my ex-fellow C/C @ QF L/haul. Dixon will get his way,he usually does, he sences there is not enough FIGHT in the FAAA "DOG"and will bulldoze this through.
:yuk:

It is unlikely he will get enough Aust. crew to go to LHR especially
CSM's & CSS's. The outcome of that will be locals employed and instantly promoted or maybe F/A's who do go will get early promotion ??

Either way I can see another lot of voluntry redundancy's coming soon. Jump now there may never be another chance.

GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL:)

Left2primary

25th Jun 2004, 11:56

capt. cynical,

I'm a lot closer to Longhaul CC than most and can tell you that the beast is awakening.
Have you ever heard what happened to Bob Ayling?

L2P

capt.cynical

25th Jun 2004, 12:09

L2P

I hope that awakening BEAST is a TIGER and not a PUSSYCAT for all your sakes.

Bob Ayling was more of a "bean counter" if my memory seves me correctly. His successor is more of the "Dixon" mould ie.
"A cunning survivor"

:yuk:

yellow rocket

25th Jun 2004, 23:13

L2P

Looking around the posts in here its as if you're hitting your head against a brick wall.

Lesley G Rant wrecked the merit and recruitment culture of Air New Zealand, she wrecked the same at Ansett and now its Qantas' turn.

There's the odd moron in this thread and just wait and watch as the recruitment profiles are adapted to focus on that type of "yes ma'am...whatever you say ma'am" personality.

Air NZ's LHR base is a wreck. It's riddled with personality preferencing reinforced by Lesley's 1-5 on board faux 'performance management'. Crew NEVER get to see their scores except in a statistically erroneous aggregate available on line through jet.net.

Did you sleep with your ISD on the last trip? Did you buy the crew a round of drinks? Oh, that's 5's for you!

Did you have no sick leave in the last three years? Save a life? Take ownership of safety or service issues? Compensate for a lack of leadership on board or poor productivity from others...

...Lesley won't give a sh*t.

Neither will the people that are recruited off shore or those who choose to relocate. They'll be labeled "supportive of the company".

25% today.

50% tomorrow.

And Emirates will eat you all alive.

Let's hope the FAAA don't sell you all down the river, the way FARSA sold their own and continues to cut Freedom crew off at the knees.

sirjfp

26th Jun 2004, 00:44

Folks,

I am no longer a member of the FAAA depite keeping my membership for a whiile after the collapse of ansett .

I would be interested to hear what people think that the FAAA should do about this proposal.

I am sure that someone from the FAAA will see this forum.

The fee paying FAAA members have got to remember that THEY are the union. THEY vote the executive into power and, if THEY don't like how the union handles this situation then THEY should vote them out. As far as I know the FAAA is still an open forum.

What should be done....strike????? , withdraw overtime?....sick leave.....? use disruptive industrial tactics ???

Remember you are the union!

Fact is , I don't really think you can do much about it other than causing a bit of mayhem which will certainly go down well with the general public , who ultimately pay the wages.

Dixon will get what he wants , and when he gets it it will be easy to use the FAAA as a scapegoat .

Lets hear it Ladies and Gentlemen , assuming that the FAAA ececutive read this forum , what do you propose THEY ( read you ) should do.?

Bodum

26th Jun 2004, 01:33

Im not at all suprised the company gave the union 2 hours notice prior to a media conferance.

The union has been giving "dispensation" for this and "dispensation" for that so much lately, that the company knows they are a complete push over.

I have always respected the union and have been a member for 7 years, but my views are slowly starting to change as im not seeing our once STRONG union as strong as they once were.

Dixon WILL get what he wants, I guarantee it. The Union will give dispensation.

yellow rocket

26th Jun 2004, 02:08

The FAAA's own members will hang themselves with the rope they're given - just watch as a new EBA goes out for ratification and the greedies vote to keep their seniority based trip bidding and the overseas base cap comes off as a trade off.

leemo

26th Jun 2004, 04:32

Before the loss of Paris flights I think many of the senior crew where in the mindset of 'I don't go to London, so the base there won't affect me'.

I think now the senior people have lost Paris they may start thinking about the effects of the overseas base.

Anyone online will have heard the other rumour 'We are getting Rome back'. I can assure everyone that if we do start flying back to Rome it will NOT be with Australian based crew.

I also heard from a good source at QCC on Thursday that Australian based crew will not be flying to Frankfurt once the London base is open.

The plan is to PAX London based crew to Frankfurt, Rome, Paris (maybe?) and then have them operate to Singapore/Bangkok.

As the London based crew are on different awards the PAX'ing component of the trip will be unpaid and not count towards maximum duty limits. This would be the same as Thai and Kiwi crew paxing around the network and not getting paid.

Here's hoping all crew stick together and hit Qantas with a prolonged strike which will hurt Qantas financially. Its the only thing Dixon understands.

Left2primary

26th Jun 2004, 05:35

Lots of comments here from people about the FAAA, most of whom sound misinformed.

In recent past the INTERNATIONAL division of the FAAA has been beset with factional infighting which to a large degree has played into the hands of QF management.

Such was the disgust of the membership at the outcome from our last round of negotiations that the faction responsible for its outcome decided not to even run this time around.

The more militant of the factions now has control and at last CC present a united front against QF's attacks.

QF are going to find out soon that if you push people too far they will reach a point where they turn around and bite you, HARD.

L2P

GalleyHag

26th Jun 2004, 06:42

I totally agree the writing is on the wall for long haul crew. European flying will be limited or non existent once the London base is opened.

I hope the members and the FAAA fight Qantas hard on this issue because it has an effect not only on existing long haul crew but the future of many AUSTRALIANS wanting to work with Qantas.

Once London is up and running you get bet they turn their sights on L.A. and the other bases previously discussed.

One question though, how can Dixon do this and announce it when there is a cap of 370 in the EBA? Does this mean QF are going to ignore the EBA on this issue?

L2P: Lets hope all long haul crew have your attitude.

leemo

26th Jun 2004, 08:07

GH, you are exactly right. LA base will be next and then Jo'Berg. Soon Australian's will have no where to fly to.

The current cap of 370 is due for discussion in the new EBA. The current EBA expires on 18th Dec 04.

As the base does not open until mid 05 Dixon will use it as a bargaining tool to cut back existing conditions. As usual employees don't count, as long as the stock market likes it Dixon will shaft us all.

Current short haul MAM casuals have been offered 10 mnths long haul contracts. They will be used a stike breakers when we eventually stop work. For this reason the FAAA must make the stop work last for several days.

Another way would be for all crew to band together and organise a worldwide 'call in sick' day. Catch Dixon unprepared and screw QF over for a change.

I just can't understand why Qantas hate crew so much?

Qwannas

26th Jun 2004, 10:07

I just can't understand why Qantas hate crew so much?
I often wonder "what gives?", too!

I think Geofrey sees the FA's as a soft target. Personally, I would not flinch for a second if I had to do a bit of industrial action for a worth while cause. I am not a big fan of corporate greed (and that's what controls QF).

I think that with all of this take, take, take (combined with the disrespectful way in which Geof is going about it all) is all starting to take it's toll on the FA's. Even those previously an with "anti-strike" work ethic are starting to see this as their only choice.

Left2primary

26th Jun 2004, 10:11

Have faith Qwannas, the beast is stirring.

L2P

QANTASTIC

26th Jun 2004, 10:42

I have a few questions to anyone in the know thats on line with QF ?? Why are QF only offering externals a 10month contract based long haul Mel ..80 staff required in total ?? Who will fill the gap once they all leave?? They have around 300 if not more MAM casuels on line now and I belive a lot more going on line once the current MAM interviews are over. Will they always have this big base of casuels working for QF on going month to month??
I was told DIRECTLY with QF HR that QF are going to be doing ANOTHER drive for new hire as they have NO more shortlisters on the list. Why would this be required?? Also why are short haul crew been asked if they want to work on a 3 year contract in Brisbane and then return to their short haul position after that??
The whole thing at the moment is so hard to understand !!
Why has the crew not said enough is enough ..special long haul crew since there job seems to be more at risk!! I belive from August the short haul crew will be flying to HKG and TYO sharing with long haul crew..So once the london base is up no more EUROPE flying domestic crew fly regionals domesti crew fill in Brisbane ..So really the long haul crew are getting screwed from both sides!! WHY HAVENT THEY DONE SOMTHING TO PUT A STOP NOW !! Or is QF just saying all this just to get what they want and use LON as a threat !! So if they dont get they want by by crew!! Lets face it from all this there wont be much flying available for long haul crew by MID JUL next year if all goes to plan !! WILL THERE??? ACTION NOW AND give QF a taste of what they are up against?? Sorry to ask so many questions it just angers me with everything that is happening??

SydGirl

26th Jun 2004, 11:00

QANTASTIC,

My theory (and it is only a theory) is that QF LH and SH will eventually merge and become a sort of QF Mid-Haul. All the short hops will be done by Jetstar, and the point to point mid haul flights (say 14 hrs and less) will be done by QF Mid-Haul.

The point to point from destinations outside of AUS (eg. BKK-LHR) will be done by foreign based contract crew. (Ok that's the end of my theory heheh)

I agree with whomever mentioned that the new bases will be a bargaining tool used to further erode conditions and pay of current QF LH FAs. I am not a QF LH FA but do sincerely hope that my colleagues and friends from both SH and LH will stand united as if there are any cracks then Dickie will exploit them and everyone will end up losers.

I too believe those who are being offered the 10 month longhaul contracts will be used as strikebreakers at one time or another.

Frankly I think it's a bloody disgrace and totally un-Australian.

SG
:}

yellow rocket

26th Jun 2004, 11:42

QANTASTIC

I'm not 'in the know' at Qantas but I can outline to you what goes on at Air NZ post Lesley G. Rant, from which I can see the same pattern emerging at QF re F/A recruitment.

What I have to describe is complex (sorry!) but it should go a long way to answering your question as to why HR only offered fixed term to a handful of externals, with the rest axed from the shortlist.

Assumption - Dicko wants to have 25% casualisation out on line. That's been publicly stated.

MAM expands as does AKL (already happening with shortlisters told they can't go to overseas bases and AKL recruiting every few months), get ready for LAX, LHR or wherever.

This means all new hire will be on fixed term as happens at NZ with all not employed by QF at all. Great cost saving for the airline. Lesley can coo in Dickos ear and say Customer Services (CC) has achieved its casualisation and cost targets over the period in question.

NZ has rarely given external to permanent in the last 5 years. The airline calls new hires 'temps'. Typically a temp is hired for 6 - 9 months during seasonal cycles.

The only base offering permanent often lately is LHR - because the turnover is so high they have to. The base pay before tax of around 25% is £1600 per month. Add to that a US$285 per trip allowance. There are about 4 or 5 trips per roster, with barely more than 2 days off between each. Rent in London's outskirts is about £450 per month for a room or if you want your own place expect about £6-700.

If you immigrate to the UK to join LHR, do not expect any kind of transfer to a NZ base. Doesn't happen anymore except to those coming off the last of the New Zealand based transfers who were on 3 year contracts ex New Zealand and already permanent at home.

Do you need a UK/EU passport? Yes, but not initially. Base employment was classified as a 'skills shortage' for visa purposes, which is why the carrot can be dangled for suckers who are prepared to transfer up there when the base is new.

Nowadays, go to LHR, you STAY at LHR, which is another reason why the base is attracting some really poor local candidates who expedite ahead of New Zealanders for OBM positions - the ISDs and ISCs (CSMs and CSSs) don't even want to stay.

Meanwhile, back in New Zealand, under NZ law, the term for a New Zealand based fixed term contract cannot be rolled continuously so eventually the temp is either made permanent or sent a letter wishing them well with their new career choice...yes, the actual words in the letter.

There is no documented process for selecting who gets permanent and who doesn't. That is exactly what has caught my attention when looking at what's going on at QF - its the same model being established. Lots of assumptions made by people that their fixed term will be a de facto probation for permanent. Under the Lesley method, it ain't happening.

Those who have blue eyes, or are "supportive of the company", or sleep with cabin crew management, or go to their homes for a rack of lamb, do quite well and often find their fixed term renewed. To be fair, some really good people slip through the net too.

No, I'm not being cynical, that is exactly whats going on.

Which is why I've been watching the devolution of management quality at QF cabin crew with some interest.

Seen it all before.

Its coming your way.

Guys, you make Qantas the icon its been. You deserve so much better.

Floaty

26th Jun 2004, 13:23

...Base employment was classified as a 'skills shortage' for visa purposes, which is why the carrot can be dangled for suckers who are prepared to transfer up there when the base is new...

Yellow rocket... you would be amazed how many people in the U.K. have the "skills" for the job... and we don't need your carrot!

...Nowadays, go to LHR, you STAY at LHR, which is another reason why the base is attracting some really poor local candidates...

You don't seem to have much respect for us, "poor local candidates"... tsk tsk tsk... :hmm:

...Those who have blue eyes, or are "supportive of the company", or sleep with cabin crew management, or go to their homes for a rack of lamb, do quite well and often find their fixed term renewed. To be fair, some really good people slip through the net too...

You even have a pretty bad opinion of your own people! What's wrong with you? Were you not very popular at school or what??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I think QANTAS is simply following what other airlines have been doing in order to save their @rse in this industry. It's not meant against Australians, against short-listers or anything like that. It's the way things evolve. Cutting costs on allowances is nothing new to most airlines. Has anyone noticed that things are changing??????? Not that I like it but we gotta realize that the aviation old days are gone: low-cost have kicked in, competition is open to anyone, the old 5 star service is a thing of the past... :ugh: (expect for those lucky popstars sitting at the front)... Nowaday going by bus or by plane makes very little difference... aviation has expanded enormously and tickets have become less expensive... everyone is travelling and flying is no luxury anymore! Changes require people to ADAPT. You're in or you're out. It's nothing personal... and it'not about "sleeping with cabin crew management, or go to their homes for a rack of lamb"...

We (U.K. very skilled but poor local candidates) know this type of situation too well. Come over here and see how things work!
Every airline I can think of has been cutting costs in the last few years, especially after 911.
Since the beginning of the EU, loads of foreign people have relocated here to work as cabin crew. They can't find work in their own country so they come to the U.K. where the airline industry is huge. I can't think of any U.K. cabin crew who joined Iberia, KLM or Alitalia, that I know... Do you think U.K. crew went on strike because of that? Nah! It's the way things are!
We all know it is very difficult to work for a good airline and get a decent salary. We all know that the old BA contracts are long gone and I'm sure BA waiting lists for transfers are even longer than the QANTAS ones!

There are 12 million people living in London (greater LDN) alone... and only 18 million people in the whole Australian continent... Now guess who's more likely to adapt?!? :bored:

Sorry guys! Reality check! :sad:

FJ

yellow rocket

26th Jun 2004, 22:27

Floaty

"Skills shortage" is a classification for visa application used by NZ to expatriate staff to the UK base.

The quality of applicant is a fact - I've done EPs with them. I've also watched highly productive people who add value to the airline lose out on career development because it is cheaper to reward people who aren't going to stay long term...which is the whole point of casualising the workforce.

If you think you could improve the base, then apply.

leemo

26th Jun 2004, 22:28

Reality check FJ,

Qantas do not need to save their A@SS, they are making record profits. This is just about corporate greed and total disrespect for employees.

Can I urge all crew to attend the FAAA meeting in the next few weeks.

If you are unsure of the FAAA meeting dates, let me know and I'll PM them to you. Or post them here.

Left2primary

26th Jun 2004, 23:28

FJ,
it seems that you are the one in need of a reality check.

QF at present are making RECORD profits.
Your blah, blah, blah,low cost carriers,blah blah blah,rant ignores the fact that the international side of QFs operation is next to immune from the threat of the Ryan air, Easyjet model.

People will and DO pay for comfort and service when traveling LONGHAUL. Inseat videos, food,wine,space and comfort............
It is next to impossible to buy a J/C seat with QF on the Kangaroo route at the moment such is the demand.

The FAAAs battle is to do with maintaining Australian jobs, in Australia for the benefit of ALL Australians.

Lesley Grant was in no small way responsible for nearly destroying Air NZ.

The last thing QF need at this point is a nasty dose of industrial strife brought about by an attack on the conditions of its front line staff.

Qantas, the worlds greediest airline.

L2P

jetjockey7

27th Jun 2004, 00:50

Pay for LHR based crew will be 16,500 pounds p.a
Allowances will be approx 35 pounds per day
Accommodation will be airport hotels.Airports in HKG and BKK are 45 mins travelling time from the respective cities
Flying will be mainly trips of 3 and 4 days in length.You can expect to be away around 22 days a month.If you accumulate days in excess of 3 days on standown you will be required to do standby duties to cover sick leave.
There will be no associated airline benefits.In particular no staff travel discounts on any airline.
Flight attendants from the mainline operation of QF will be considered to be on leave without pay and will be paid by Adecco.
If you are promoted to the position of Onboard manager while in LHR you will still return to Sydney as a flight attendant.Your promotion will not carry back into mainline flying.
If any of you considers applying for these positions take a copy of your contract to an attorney that has an industrial relations background.Be Careful with the fine print!
The duration of the contract will be 2-3 years
If you can talk to some of the existing Thai and AKL based crew do so.The stories of fatigue and sickness related to the arduous nature of their flying will astound.
Qantas is in the transport business, customer service is secondary.IFE failures,aircraft breakdowns etc are endemic.Aircraft utililisation is the highest in aviation.Be prepared for delays rolling calls etc.You will not be paid for any overtime incurred.
Again QF is in the transport business, transporting large numbers of pax from one destination to another.The rest is window dressing.
You will not be treated as anything else other than arms and legs to do a job.Qantas has scant regard for its mainline people.Imagine how you will be treated as a remote employee.
As far as mainline employees are concerned be very careful about withdrawing your labour as a form of protest.You will be locked out and on contracts before you can say kingrat(Geoff Dixon`s nickname,Lesley Grant is affectionately known as the Black Widow)
Senior QF management are both astute and ruthless.Strike breaking plans are already in place.
A change of federal government will be a plus.It will change the industrial relations landscape in the employees favour.Lobby your local federal member and voice your opinion.
Finally be aware that management from time to time monitor forums such as this.The FAAA is aware of this and their website is to become password access only as a result

jetjockey7

27th Jun 2004, 02:00

Flight time between LHR and SIN,BKK,and HKG is typically between 12 and 13 hours.Apart from Qf31(daylight from Sin)all sectors have an overnight component.Slip time in SIN,HKG and BKK will be in most cases 24 hrs.An overlap may result in longer slip time but nothing longer than 36 hrs.
Doing this 6 times a month will result in more chest,throat and ear infections than you have ever had in your life.Sleep patterns will be destroyed.The terms Stillnox.normison,melantonin will creep into your vocabulary.The partner you have now is not likely to be around in 12 months.
Forget about being home for weekends ,birthdays,christmas and any other anniversaries.
Give this a lot of consideration.This is the reality of a long haul flight attendant.This is meant to inform not frighten.I have no agenda other than to provide information that you will need to to consider before you make a life altering decision.

TSSOV

27th Jun 2004, 04:51

Hong Kong - LHR will only be only 3 times a week, making a 24 hr slip impossible. Maybe the Aussie crews will get to LHR (through Hong Kong)....

who knows!

SMILE:D

jetjockey7

27th Jun 2004, 09:38

I take your point.
Scenario:
You do your sector from LHR to HKG.The next service back to LHR is not for two days.Two days accommodation,two days allowance ,too expensive.At the end of your 24 hour slip in HKG you pax to BKK,transit for 2 hours and pickup the QF2 to LHR.You have no hours limitation to your tour of duty.Pax operate it doesn`t matter.You have been employed to save money.16 or 17 hour duties will become the norm for you.If you complain or go sick too often your contract will be reviewed.There are thousands of people ready to fill your shoes.I have been in airline management for 20 years,I have a reasonable idea of how these things work .

TSSOV

27th Jun 2004, 14:51

jetjockey7 -

It’s interesting that you have only just registered on the 27th. Seems to me you became a ppruner to start s**t stirring. I have friends that moderate other aviation forums here in Australia. In the past they have had to ban users who have been found out to being paid by their employers (of a rival airline) to bad mouth QF in this particular public forum.... all with a bit of... how shall I put it?…"flair" :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

I hope I’m wrong. It’s just this pessimistic attitude, which you project under a facade of 20 years "airline management".

People, please don’t take the as an attack on other airlines. Furthermore, I too share the same feelings about certain things that have happened in The Land Down Under to starry eyed wanna-bees...AND hardworking professionals (i.e. Ansett.) I don’t consider myself to be a naive person – pprune is not my only source of airline goss, I am a quiet listener, and have spoken up here to raise a question, and will be as happy as a wanna-be in a CC uniform if I am wrong. i am a compassionate individual too, if you have a problem with what I have written in this post feel free to PM me - in fact I encourage it.

anywhooo...

SMILE:D

igb56

27th Jun 2004, 19:28

See today`s Sunday Times Business Section re QF taking on 400 London-based cabin crew. Apparently to combat Singapore and Branson.

Left2primary

28th Jun 2004, 00:19

TSSOV,

I'm guessing jj7''s comments are born of experience and not an attempt to bad mouth a rival airline.
Many of us have first hand experience in the immoral way QF treat it's operational staff,when unprotected by a fair and equitable award.

I have no idea if you have any experience in longhaul flying but if you do how does this pattern sound to you?

AKL-BNE-SYD--24
SYD-SIN --24
SIN-FRA --24
FRA-SIN --24
SIN-SYD --48 [1 day used for EP/other training]
SYD-BNE-AKL

With no reqirement for stand down beyond 2 days you are then off to LAX.

AKL based adecco staff are treated as nothing more than a means of production as demonstrated by this totaly inhumane pattern.

Rumour has it that CASA found two AKL staff asleep [a common occurance] at their jumseats on taxi. After investigation into the patterns they were subjected to they were suddenly given 48 hours in SIN.

Anyone who thinks that the proposed LHR base crew will be treated any better is delusional.

Greed at QF knows no limits so stock up on chemicals to help you cope.

Not pretty?...................its the truth.

L2P

TSSOV

28th Jun 2004, 00:50

L2 Primary -

Thanks for your post. I take your point, and empathise. I too am a hard worker, and can understand what that pattern is like to work. I posted initially because I found it irritating that my friend JJ7 had posted three times in one day (their 1st day of pprune membership) about the london base - add 500mL of pessimism and serve.

Its ok. I enjoyed the healthy disscussion:p

TSSOV

SMILE:D

Birds2perches

28th Jun 2004, 22:28

I can understand how upset Aussies must be. Unfortunately, QF are only doing what most airlines are doing .... saving money. None of us like it. I impacts on our lives, but there is no point having a go at anyone in this part of the world for wanting to apply for the job. Its not their fault is it? Ask yourself this? If for instance BA did the same thing and set up a base in Sydney for Aussie crew, can you honestly say that none of you would apply because you felt it was wrong and insensivitve to take jobs of the Brits? I don't think so. At then end of the day, I think you will find that a large majority of your own staff will opt for the post and what a great opportunity it would be for them. Why don't you put your views forward to the people that make these decisions. As QFmike737 mentioned, bitterness between two bases is damaging.

:sad:

No doubt I shall now receive a barrage of abuse!!!!

sinala1

28th Jun 2004, 22:51

ihatedixon

28th Jun 2004, 23:42

.....send him email

[email protected]

mach2male

29th Jun 2004, 00:47

KING RAT and the BLACK WIDOW:I like that.
Rodents and deadly spiders.
Would Mark Hassell be the Queen Bee ?

ihatedixon

29th Jun 2004, 01:06

And Don't Forget Mark Hassell....the smiling assassin

qfcabin

29th Jun 2004, 04:36

She is now known as Kylie..on account she is a lot more popular in London than in Australia.

leemo

29th Jun 2004, 08:34

Did anyone else get the letter from QF today?

Mark Hassell reckons they are, quote ' pouring away A$18 Million on accomodation and allowances in London '.

I would say allowances and accomodation are operating expenses and part and parcel of running and airline plus they are tax deductible for the company.

The base pay of uk#12,000 is an insult. With allowances etc. you could make up to uk#25,000 then take off around 30% in tax and NI deductions. Any one know how this compares to B.A.?

Don't forget to attend the FAAA meetings over the next few weeks.

Left2primary

29th Jun 2004, 10:09

Hey Leemo,

The smiling assasin used a rather ironic metaphor dont you think?

L2p

sammyhostie3

29th Jun 2004, 14:41

Guys,

The QF base will open Apr/Mat 2005, but before we all get our hopes up, the new crew based at LHR will have to be Oz passport holders.

I know this for a fact as my old mates at BA are trying to apply through BA/Oneworld, but have been told they have to hold an Oz passport.

There are a lot of angry crew out there!

Q-Tee

29th Jun 2004, 14:55

It will actually open June/ July 2005 .... and at this stage any person who wishes to work for QANTAS ( read - QANTAS ... hang on you will get my point in a bit .......) has to be a permanent resident of Australia ... thats why BA people enquiring to QF HR would get a 'not likely' response ..... cos they are asking about working for the wrong company !!!!!!!!!!!! We wont be working for Qantas ....

HOWEVER ... the crew employed for the LHR base (including current QF staff wishing to go there) will be employed by a UK based company called QF Cabin Crew UK .... this company does not exist yet .... but will do shortly, so you will have to apply to them .... not QANTAS ...

Those of us already here at QF and wanting to be based in LHR will have to take 2 years leave without pay from QF, have to go through a selection process to get the job with QF Cabin Crew UK ..... we will be working for a completely different company ... on a contract ... different conditions .....with approved leave from Qantas .....and maybe with no staff travel etc ...... but who cares ???? what an adventure :8

sammyhostie3

29th Jun 2004, 15:00

Cool.

Although why do you want to work here?

LHR is an awful airport, and indeed the UK is a ****ty place.

There lots of ex - QF Crew a MyTravel who cant wait to get back to OZ, they are fed up of the extortionate rent, council tax, weather, conditions and immigrants.

I would stay where you are!

Q-Tee

29th Jun 2004, 23:52

Why?

Most Australians do not have the right to live or work in Europe (myself included) ..... I do not plan on living in the UK, but commuting from somewhere nearby .... This is the only chance this old gal has to spend a couple of years living and working in Europe ..... with no risk, as my old job will be waiting for me when I finish :)

Left2primary

30th Jun 2004, 03:20

Q-Tee,
read your personal mail

Argus

30th Jun 2004, 04:31

Q-TEE

Like your approach.

Good luck to you.

Q-Tee

30th Jun 2004, 06:08

Well Argus ..... it seems come others do not ....

This is the mail L2P sent me :

UK bases
There are far more intelligent people than yourself trying to prevent the export of 400 Australian jobs overseas. Their efforts also include trying to maintain the working conditions of Australian based Longhaul FA's.
Posting what you earned last year does not help the cause. If you have the ability, try thinking about people other than yourself before you post.
If Lesley Grant gets her way YOU wont have a job worth having once you get sick of living in S.E. UK.

L2P

Now I arent gonna even really bother to respond to such an attack .... except to say that even the FAAA reps admit there is no possibility of returning the overseas base numbers cap after it expires in December .... so me going to London is making the best of a changing situation at work.

But people such as L2P are one of the reasons that I wish to work in an overseas base .... the people who are there will want to be there, we will have a happy little base without the nastiness of working in SYD. I have put up with the 'crew militant dictators' forcing their opinions on everyone for far too long now...

The people who fail to change with this ever changing industry, are the ones who will be out of a job ..... and like the dinosaurs, those who cannot adapt and make the best of new situations will be the ones that will be extinct.

Oh and before L2P starts some dribble that I am management or have alterior motives for being positive about the LHR base , I arent ..... I am just a humble air hostess who is looking at the positives, rather than the majority of those in QF crew ranks who choose to focus on the negatives.

Plus an old gal like me could do with a bit of adventure in her life - and thats how I see it :)

Ciao for now, I dont think I will be posting here again - differing opnions I can deal with .... however out & out rudeness and aggression ?? Well, I get enough of from the L2P's of the world at work :p

Happy flying guys and gals :}

Oh and PS, sorry about not responding to the hundreds of other PMs, I didnt realise that facility was there till today
:O

Left2primary

30th Jun 2004, 07:48

No QTee,
you are not management but rather, a fool.
Leaving SYD because you are always on the "outer"?.
Perhaps it time to have a good look at yourself.
L2P

Birds2perches

30th Jun 2004, 08:32

Someone asked about how the pay compares to other airlines. If you've got the facts right and the basic is £12000 + allowances, that is actually very, very good. Someone said it was an insult. Thats well above almost every airline here and compares well with BA who are up there with the highest paid. I'm on the old contract with BA with a basic of just over £12000 and earn well over £2500.00 I have friends who've just joined on the new BA contract on £9500 who also still bring home nearly £2000 a month - and thats at LGW. Hardly to be sniffed at in the business. You are far better off being based at LHR as its more money. Of course cost of living is hideously expensive here, but you can reduce that dramatcially if you don't go and live in the middle of London! As for opening it uo just to Aussies, I'm not too sure I believe that. Can you tell me how you came to this info please. Just askling?
:confused:

Q-Tee

30th Jun 2004, 09:12

No L2P, I am certainly not on the outer ....I am a very popular 'old gal' , you probably know me...and I do my job well, have fun, and dont bother others with militant views and constant complaining ..... as I said I am leaving SYD for an adventure ....:p if the base wasnt opening I would be happy to stay, as I will be happy to come back after my contract has finished in LHR.

You said I should think of other people before I post? Well, you will find darling, that there are plenty of people who see this change as an opportunity, rather than a 'chicken-licken-the-sky-is-falling' disaster (as you obviously do). So how about YOU try and think of others before you post??? Or before you send rude PM's, attacking someone based purely on seeing the positive out of something?

Get with the picture luv, this industry is changing, there is not a lot we can do about it except make the best of it ..... the overseas base cap is finished, it will never reappear again, so why not make the most of a great opporunity?

I will leave you to now broil in your bitterness (one thing I have never managed to pick-up in all my years of flying :p .... and I dare say they are a lot more years than you sweetie).

Argus

30th Jun 2004, 10:05

Q-TEE

I don't know you. I've never met you unless you've crewed back in the days when I used to fly QF. But it seems to me that, judging from your recent posts, you've got the sort of positive qualities and customer focussed attitude that QF can ill afford to use. But, it's your life, and you are a long time dead. You've assessed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and made your choice. It sounds like the chance of a lifetime. Bonne chance mon/ma brave

L2P

Resorting to personal abuse by either post or PM does your cause no favours. Your profile says nothing about you. Is this deliberate?

You should either address the facts and issues, or keep your views to yourself. Holding forth with abuse and insults while hiding behind the anonymity of these forums merely supports the arguments that either;

• QF is quite justified in putting jobs offshore if its Oz based staff hold views such as yours; or,

• QF should be looking to 'reinvigorate' its Oz based staff by offering redundancy to those who hold your negative views.

To be blunt, stop pulling pud and get a life, son.

And you should also seek some professional advice on the law of defamation.

GalleyHag

30th Jun 2004, 10:55

The decision has been made and when QF make a decision they almost never back away from it, when it comes to cost cutting.

Therefore all I hope for is that ONLY Australians will operate out of this base. It is unacceptable to have U.K. Citizens operate all flights out of London on an Australian airline when the reason is all about money not language or cutural reasons, these are jobs that Australian's deserve and no-one else.

If the shoe was on the other foot and B.A. decided that U.K. crew would never operate down to Australia again only Australian crew if a base was ever set up we would never hear the end of it.

Q-Tee I wish you the best of luck with the selection process and the positive contribution you make to prune.

I dont agree with the base opening and London is just the start, you can bet once the cap is removed and QF see the real savings from the London base that bases will be opening all over the place effecting the lives of all Australian QF crew. Not to mention the opportunity for Australians wanting to be flight attendants with Qantas is also going off-shore.

L2P and people that think that way are the only ones that can make a difference, QF need to know that this is not acceptable, and the crew are not just going to sit back and take it, they are out there trying to make a difference and fight for their careers, should they just give in without a fight?

Left2primary

30th Jun 2004, 11:03

Argus,

the number 1 aviation groupee speaks!!!

My views are out there for all to see.
QF's greed in shipping hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost it's already record bottom line.

Plus the reduction in pay, conditions and overall job security for the remaining Australian based staff who are in no small part, responsible for the success QF currently enjoys.

What exactly ARE you views?

L2P

Oh BTW- I had a conversation the other day with a retired Longhaul CSM.
He has a 23 year old son in the hospitality industry and was lamenting the fact that the Thais/Kiwis got his job.
It looks like the Poms will get your sons/ daughters jobs too.

"QANTAS, the worlds greediest airline".

Floaty

30th Jun 2004, 12:32

Therefore all I hope for is that ONLY Australians will operate out of this base. It is unacceptable to have U.K. Citizens operate all flights out of London on an Australian airline when the reason is all about money not language or cutural reasons, these are jobs that Australian's deserve and no-one else.

:uhoh: :uhoh: :rolleyes: :hmm:

Careful there GalleyHag... QF is also serving the U.K. public, the crew will be living on U.K. ground, relying on U.K. unions, flying under U.K. laws... I find it pretty normal that a percentage of the crew positions should be granted to U.K. passport holders...

FJ

sinala1

30th Jun 2004, 13:03

I dont work for QF and most likely never will (if they dont remove their upper height limits, which by the way, are completely outdated) but can I strongly strongly recommend to everyone posting on this thread to direct your anger at QF Management and not each other... Bitterness will only lead to division amongst you, and in situations like this you need to stand strong and together and ask Dixon if he wants "the chicken or the fish", or does he want to kiss your a*se!

Above was a post I made only a few days ago

Folks please please remember it.... again I re-iterate that fighting amongst yourselves is exactly what they want

If I can quote from The Simpsons "So we'll march day and Night, by the big cooling tower, they have the plant, but we have the power"

Ok so we are not talking about a Nuclear Reactor here, but we are certainly talking about a hotpot that is just getting stirred and stirred more and more...

Remember folks United they stand, Divided they fall

:ok:

34R

30th Jun 2004, 14:05

Q-TEE

Good on you. How fantastic to see someone make a conscious decision not to be miserable, and to actually make a positive move in an attempt to experience something different.

L2P

Intimidation. If you have taken to imposing yourself on your colleagues who choose to defy what you feel is best for your future, you are no better than the management you detest. It is people like you that is wrong with Qantas.
If you really hate the place as much as you do, are as appalled with management as you say you are, by all means, make a stand. RESIGN. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are still there.
BTW, have you set a date for your fabled stirring beast to rear its head. I can't wait for that one.

jace

30th Jun 2004, 15:02

Just an idea but if QF are opening a base in the uk and BA are opening a base in aus, why not just second the respective crews to each other in their home countries? that way both airlines can save their hotel penies and the crew can stop bitching cause they'l still have their jobs! just an idea!!!!;)

Jet_Black_Monaro

30th Jun 2004, 22:56

Q-Tee, I love your work.

I have enjoyed reading about the positive outlook you have on the coming changes, and they ARE coming.

Unfortunately not all your colleagues will see this and will not survive. 70's style militant unionism just doesn't work anymore. Thankfully they are in the minority.

I wish you all the luck in the world on your adventure.

Left2primary

30th Jun 2004, 22:58

Qantas will create hundreds of cabin crew jobs in Britain
Dominic O’Connell

THE Australian airline Qantas is to create several hundred jobs in southeast England by establishing its first British base for cabin crew.

Qantas confirmed last week that it would employ 400 cabin crew in Britain to staff its flights from Heathrow. Industry sources have told The Sunday Times that UK employment could eventually grow to 1,000. Australians working for the airline in Australia would be given first call on the new jobs, chief executive Geoff Dixon said.

"QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE"

JBM,
Id give your comments on 70's style unionism a little rethink given events of late.
Teachers, busdrivers,Combank on Friday.It seems to me that the wheel has turned.

How does a Virgin Blue FA like yourself state with such authority the feelings of QF longhaul about the current climate.
I see PLENTY and they dont seem happy about the issues to me?

L2P

GalleyHag

1st Jul 2004, 00:55

Floaty

I dont find it acceptable AT ALL, and I am sure you wouldnt find it acceptable if all B.A. flights out of Australia were crewed by Australians or all B.A. flights out of the United States were crewed by Americans, that's what we are talking about here.

There are 400 positions on offer and say no current long haul crew go up to London, that means ALL flights into and out of the U.K. will be crewed by U.K. Citizens as Qantas has made it clear NO Australian based crew will be ever going back. That is my point, it is unacceptable to have a base full of U.K. Citizens operating OUR national airline.

The chances of getting a Flight Attendant job with Qantas in Australia are slim to none these days so why should U.K. Citizens be taking jobs that thousands of Australians rightly deserve. That is why I hope all 400 positions are filled and continue to be filled by Australians ONLY.

jetjockey7

1st Jul 2004, 01:46

Airline management are united and focussed.Cabin crew in this forum appear to be motivated by self interest.Mix this with a few outsiders,pilots et al and you have a lot of anger and vitriol.End result: lots of anger and little else.This is why we (long haul CC)have lost and relinquished so much in the last 10 years.We fight amongst ourselves.Some want seniority others dont.Same with the bid system.Everyone complains but no one provides a viable alternative.
We are all destination focussed.We go to work to pay the bills,the destinations are a bonus.The slip formula and the pay keep this job/lifestyle enjoyable.
Can we please have some positive creative ideas.
The vitriol should be vented on QF management not on each other

:ok:

RaverFlaver

1st Jul 2004, 03:48

I have been following this thread, with an open mind to all the points that have been mentioned and now I just want to express what I feel. I want to highlight that I am not a flight attendant and am Australian.

I think that the main issues that have been discussed or the main concern is......

A:
That some QF crew don't want people other than Australians working from the London Base.

I kind of think that it is a very narrow minded approach and resembles views of Pauline Hanson and her hideous claims and attacks against other ethnic groups taking jobs away from Australians.

Also I would think the experience of working with foreign crews would add to the excitement and interest in working with different races and for an international airline.

B:
Further more QF is being referred to as the "Worlds greediest airline", and how greedy they are for money.

Is it not the crew who are complaining about the London base, primarily concerned about the reduced money/allowances, reduced destinations and reduced Australain crew crewing flights, portraying themselves as greedy too?

A lot of companies go through change and develpoment, that see currrent situations for the employees changed, that effects them directly, though most tend to adapt to the change and continue, and more often than not, new and sometimes better outcomes are acheived for both the employees, customers and business.

Even though QF is making record profits, doesn't make it wrong for it to want to increase the profit share even more. Unfortunatley the areas they look in are the area's where money can be saved.

If it was your company I ask what you would do. Would you settle for the current state, or would you want your company to grow more and more financially?

C:
Why don't people try and look at other area's in the company where reductions can be made, or possiblities other than what is being done now and putting it forward to management as you guys are the ones who probably know the company the best? By being proactive in providing alternatives or other solutions to what is being put through by management now may help in some way.

D:
I understand, feel sorry for and sympathise with the what has happened re the shortlist. I think that maybe QF could have held on to the shortlist applicants longer and offered them the positions that may come up in the future for the London base, and do think that they should have given shortlisters the opportunity to take up the Auckland base if they wanted to.

E:
I am only expressing my view, and indeed might I add that I may lack the knowledge, exact circumtstances and conditions that others may be privvy to, but just wanted to post.

No harm or upset to anyone is meant.

Have a great day.

RaverFlaver :)

Jet_Black_Monaro

1st Jul 2004, 04:51

Well said RF! BRAVO!

Your thoughts reflect the view of a large number of QF crew I know well.

Moving with the times ensures survival. Look at the CROC!

mach2male

1st Jul 2004, 05:26

Everyone seems to forget about the self loading cargo.With the cost cutting.network reduction and reduction in service they suffer more than anybody.They are the reason we have a job.I am embarrassed by the service we offer them.Imagine telling a 1st class passenger they cant have more fish or potatoes because the bean counters have only budgetted for them to have particular portion size.15 grand LAX/SYD return and you have to say no to them.They are the ones copping it in the neck.:confused:

GalleyHag

1st Jul 2004, 05:31

My biggest issue with all of this is that QF will not offer Australian's cabin crew positions with the airline but are more than happy to export the positions off-shore. I couldnt care less if it was London, L.A. or Singapore the fact remains Australians cant even get a job with Qantas as cabin crew so any bases opened should, if they can, be operated and crewed by Australians. At least this would give people the opportunity to work as cabin crew with their national carrier.

Argus

1st Jul 2004, 05:42

L2P

the number 1 aviation groupee speaks!!!

With great respect, you still can't accept that abuse isn't an acceptable form of argument. Also, you still have difficulty in coming to terms with the damage you and others of your ilk have done to QANTAS.

You should look at the Skytrax 'World's Best Cabin Staff for 2004' awards here (http://www.airlinequality.com/2004/Staff_04.htm) Globally, for the second year running, QANTAS fails to make the top ten. Regionally, QF ranks five out of five. Why?

Could one reason possibly be, as 34R suggests,

It is people like you that is wrong with Qantas.
If you really hate the place as much as you do, are as appalled with management as you say you are, by all means, make a stand. RESIGN. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are still there.

Left2primary

1st Jul 2004, 06:22

Argus,
what exactly is the damage that myself and others have done to Qantas and what are your views on Qantas exporting hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost its already record bottom line?
Please answer.
L2P

Argus

1st Jul 2004, 08:01

L2P
what exactly is the damage that myself and others have done to Qantas

Letting your 'belt and braces' negativity influence adversely your attitude to passengers and colleagues, with a consequent fall off in service delivery standards and lowering of staff morale.

what are your views on Qantas exporting hundreds of Australian jobs offshore to boost its already record bottom line?

This is a separate issue, which is not as clear-cut as you assert. My personal view is that where possible, we should keep jobs in Oz. You seem to be saying that no jobs should ever be transferred offshore; and that those currently employed by QF (such as yourself?) should be guaranteed a job for life, irrespective of whether you loath the Management or not. In fact it seems your position is that loathing management is a prime criterion for continued employment with QF.

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.

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.

That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. 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 enthusiastic 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.

yellow rocket

1st Jul 2004, 10:51

Argus

Having a bit of difficulty following the rationale in your post...

So what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that in order for service to improve at Qantas, and for its financial performance to improve, the airline should reduce the number of Australians it employs?

And those who disagree with the decision to introduce a de facto ban on recruiting Australian domiciled persons, for Flight Attendant positions, are a cause of workplace negativity and poor service standards?

Try as hard as I can, I can't see anything 'anti management' in L2P's posts. What I do see is an attempt to encourage awareness that new management policies are not necessarily going to bring about the cost efficiencies that are being promoted.

Having a different persective to the status quo is actually pro-management, pro-company, being vocal is part of quality management process that embraces continuous improvement.

If the overseas base model is so efficient then why has every airline Lesley has introduced this at gone bankrupt?

Left2primary

1st Jul 2004, 12:37

Argus,
Im having a little trouble with your logic too.

My [negative] concerns relate to QF mass offshore employment plans and the attack on Australian based crew's conditions of employment.

CC at QF are professional enough to make distinctions on varying aspects of their lives.
Frustration with management practise does not automatically flow through to passenger service despite your assertions.

Poor moral at QF is a symptom of management practice not peoples attitude to it.
I assume you heard of, "cause and effect". [or is it affect?]

Any assertion of yours about poor CC performance at QF indicates an inability of MANAGEMENT to "performance manage" those that dont meet grade.

Why dont you address your concerns to them.They are the ones paid to be responsible.

The loss of hundreds of Australian jobs is at the heart of the matter are far more important than "senior executive" performance bonuses and share prices.

Excepting of course if you are one of the pigs at the trough.

L2P

QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE

mach2male

1st Jul 2004, 15:44

Service delivery failure in any industry is the responsibility of management.
To deliver excellent service you need to spend money Eg Emirates.
Service delivery failure at QF is so bad thet they have provided all onboard managers with a service recovery kit.This is a bandaid for the symptons not the causes of a system that is failing due to a lack of investment.
It is now a prerequisite to be able to apologize in 15 different languages to be an effective QF crew member.
Morale is non existant and crew are dismayed at not be able to do their jobs due to lack of resources.There is only one other airline that has less crew on a 3 class 400 and that is Air New Zealand.Air New Zealand collapsed and was bailed out by the New Zealand government.Lesley Grant was a member of the management team that precipitated Air New Zealand's failure.She is now weaving her magic at QF.She is being ably assisted by a variety of other failures from BA.Not one person in the Cabin
Services management team is an Australian.
There are currently 1400 Long Haul crew with their names on the transfer list to shorthaul.What does that tell you?
In 1980 Qantas was an excellent airline and a reasonable business.In 2004 it is a good business and mediocre airline-A quote from a QF Platinum frequent flyer.
QF Long haul crew are under siege and thats why they are not in the top ten in the Skytrax Surveys

:confused: :confused: :confused::confused:

jetjockey7

1st Jul 2004, 18:40

Thinking about a vacation during January and February 2005?Don't use the Qantas International Network.This is about the time the EBA negotiations will collapse and everything will go pear shape

Left2primary

1st Jul 2004, 22:24

I wouldnt want to be holding any shares around that time either.

L2P

Argus

2nd Jul 2004, 04:35

Yellow Rocket

What I’m saying is that I believe there’s a correlation between poor QF staff morale (for whatever reasons) and poor customer service. I’m not suggesting, however, that this is solely the fault of the cabin staff. As in all walks of life, it takes two to tango. QF management over the years has consistently failed to grapple with all of the issues that contributors to this thread have identified as being major divisive workplace and culture/attitudinal issues.

As I previously said, the locating of jobs offshore is a separate issue. Some see opportunities, others see threats. Being but a humble ‘punter’ (sorry to disappoint you L2P no snout in the trough - I don't even own Qantas shares, let alone work or have ever applied to work for QF or any other airline), I’m not privy to the small print. However, from what other posters have said, there’s a safety net for those who accept; and no forced redundancies for those who don’t. On this basis, it seems a 'win/win' situation to me.

What does concerns me is that in all of the bickering, there’s no consideration for the poor old customer who pays the fares that keeps the whole show on the road. Complaints to Qantas either go unanswered or are responded to in ambiguous language that rarely answers the questions put by the complainant. Cabin service is, at best something of a lottery. So punters vote with their feet.

Take a moment to look again at the 2004 Cabin Staff survey (http://www.airlinequality.com/2004/Staff_04.htm) The supporting information says that it attracted more than two million (2,117,846) eligible nominations from 93 different nationalities over a 10 month period, there were detailed back-up interviews of a representative sample of respondents and, finally, data weighting was applied to provide nomination equity when evaluating airlines of different size and network. Unless that’s all a load of guff, it’s a well run survey, with reliable results.

So the question is, if QF fails to make the top 10, two years in a row, when will ALL who are resonsible for customer service get on with the job of lifting the company's game?

go_dj

2nd Jul 2004, 08:34

Argus

Worse than that, the Skytrax survey only rated QF 5th
in the Australia/Pacific.

Regional Ranking

AUSTRALIA / PACIFIC

1. Air Tahiti Nui

2. Air New Zealand

3. Polynesian Airlines

4. Air Calin

5. Qantas Airways

This is bad when the Australian overseas airline ranks this low.

SydGirl

2nd Jul 2004, 11:32

Argus whilst what you are saying about poor customer service from QF cabin staff MAY be true, it is not really fair to shoot the messenger ie. just the cabin crew in this instance.

As per Prof. James Reason's model - there is more than just one cause and there may be many failures contributing.

Perhaps looking into WHY cabin crew are not giving exceptional customer service will help establish the real reason behind a poor performance in the survey.

Poor morale is just one reason... no doubt there are many more. I think it is safe to say that QF management's attempt to move jobs offshore is not contributing to an improvement in cabin crew's morale or work ethic.

Of course, that's just my opinion.
SG
:}

Argus

3rd Jul 2004, 02:55

SydGirl

Argus whilst what you are saying about poor customer service from QF cabin staff MAY be true, it is not really fair to shoot the messenger ie. just the cabin crew in this instance.

Totally agree. It takes two to tango. When it comes to dealing with underperforming staff for whatever reason, QF management has been out to lunch for a long time.

Perhaps looking into WHY cabin crew are not giving exceptional customer service will help establish the real reason behind a poor performance in the survey.

Totally agree. But this is the responsibility of all involved, not just management. As a frequent traveller, I'd be only too pleased to make a contribution.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

You have every right to express your opinion. It's worth just as much as any other and deserves to be taken seriously.

:ok:

Argus moon

I sincerely hope we're not related. No relative of mine would make such an irrelevant and unsubstantiated comment about Geoff Dixon's private life that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

argusmoon

4th Jul 2004, 08:02

I unconditonally apologize for my previous post(which I have now deleted).
It was totally out of order and in poor taste:sad:

Alotta

4th Jul 2004, 23:20

When you have a QF Long Haul FA in uniform, just off a flight yelling at the top of her voice to QF ground staff at the Domestic Transfer in Sydney, with masses of passengers queued up, something to the tune of....f*** you, f*** Qantas, and then storming out whilst yelling to all the passengers in queue, 'that's why you should all fly Virgin'........how can people like that be giving any good customer service on a flight and there are so many people trying to get in and want to give great customer service.
It's disgraceful and QF need to weed these people out

SydGirl

4th Jul 2004, 23:31

Alotta I'm afraid that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If what you mentioned actually happened then I can only assume that the FA is no longer employed by QF. If not, then perhaps you should consider addressing your concerns to the appropriate personnel so they can action them.

QF employs many FAs who are well trained safety and service professionals. Don't let one bad seed ruin the whole crop.

SG
:}

leemo

5th Jul 2004, 00:01

Alotta,

While the reaction of that crew member was unprofessional and over the top.

You have to ask yourself, why did she act that way?

Maybe she was so fed up with management that this was the last straw for her?

You know a few years ago QF came to us and basically said "If you don't take a pay freeze we might not survive". This was shortly after 9/11 and rightly so we agreed to a pay freeze and also reduced crewing on the aircraft.

A couple of year later we are now still flying with reduced crew but with a far superior product to deliver to our customers. Hence, the delivery of this produce takes longer and is more involved.

My main gripe with the company though is that since 9/11 they have made RECORD profits and announced last week they are well on the way to making AU$700 million this year.

This record profit has been achieved partly because of the saving made by reduced crewing and pay freezes.

Do we get anything from QF? NO...not even a thank you. In fact we get a kick in the face from management by them opening a London base.

I am a junior flight attendant and only get London trips. I have calculated that my loss of allowances, long range flying and O/T will be around AU$25,000 per year due to my London trips going.

There will still be trips where you can make lots of money but these will become so senior only the top group of senior crew will be able to get them.

This mean the company will still be stuck with the senior crew earning huge basic pays + super + allowances but the junior enthusiastic crew will be reconsidering whether they can now afford to stay at QF.

A MASSIVE profit at the expense of employees.

QANTAS - The Spirit Of Corporate Greed

TSSOV

5th Jul 2004, 06:33

leemo -

Do QF CC have 'buckets' on certain types of trips - like the tech crew do? These were generally the more popular ones - ie for O/T or longer slips for more allowence. I know 744 S/O's cant get more that three LAX or HGK's in a roster period, and when the 76' was flying to HNL, there was a 'bucket' of 1 or 2. It might be worth finding out if this is possible... only to make it fair. On the other hand I understand that senior crew have been waiting their turn to get the better trips.

SMILE:D

TSSOV

leemo

5th Jul 2004, 07:30

Hi TSSOV,

No we don't have bucket type flying. The company were interested in persuing this type of rostering last year but it never went ahead. I personally think the company did not give enough information to crew about what this type of rostering would entail.

Ask most crew what bucket flying is and they would have no idea.

I personally would like to see a change to the seniority system. My favourite option is rotational seniority which is what 737 tech crew have.

I would also be happy with bucket flying as long as seniority was kept for day off bidding.

At the moment the top 5% of very senior crew get all the good trips with long slips and high allowances. Thats why you get the 'older' crew on Tokyo, Honolulu trips. There should definately be a cap on the amount of these trips they are allocated. Its not fair they get 5 day in Hawaii back to back.

Unfortunately the current seniority system would not allow a cap. Whenever you mention the system being changed to senior crew they also come back with "I've done my time, I deserve to get what I bid for". Well although they have worked for the company for a long time they should remember that when they started flying they got paid excellent wages and allowances, used to spend a week in Tahiti at the companies expense and had it far, far better than junior crew now days.

Its highely unlikely the seniority system will be changed while these oldies are still around.

SYDNEY CREW DON'T FORGET THE FAAA MEETINGS START TOMORROW (6TH JULY) AT 10am

skyboy1919

5th Jul 2004, 18:08

I would like to add my two pence worth about this. Although I have only been flying for 8 years, I have seen a few changes in the industry, and one of them is the opening of foreign as such bases, and I cannot belive how upset people are getting over it. In the UK, ( which I do not think is that ****ty, and have been based in many places around the world ) many airlines have bases around Europe, and the world. And I think it is great, Qantas passengers are not all Aussies, many are Brits and Europeans, and that should although I think its great when you get on board a National carrier as such to have crew from that country, I belive culture awareness is just as important. Its not that they are reducing jobs in Australia is it? So why is everyone against it, my airline has crew based in about 15 different places, 7 overseas, we are a british airline, with crew from around the world, and I think its great, this is starting to become a slagging match and not a forum, I understand you should be able to express views, but this post has now just become one or two peoples slagging match, which is very sad, those that do not want to come to LHR dont. Those that don, come and enjoy, we would love to have ya, as for Brits working for you, wont be the end of the world will it? we are not that bad! Use this post to gain information, and warn people if things are not looking good, but not to slag of the weather, or rent prices, I was lucky enough to be based in Aus over the winter with my last airline, that has now gone bust, and I loved it, would nt move, got stiched up with pay, but loved it, made the most and enjoyed it for what it was, a great chance to see the oposite side of the world, for free!!!!

leemo

5th Jul 2004, 23:11

Skyboy @ ib16uk,

This is not about slagging off the UK or being racist to UK nationals. Our argument is that the company WE work for has made record profits over the past couple of years, and its employees have recieved nothing in return. Qantas told us there was no money for a pay rise or bonus, they took crew off the plane and gave us a crap product to hand out.

On top of now making hundreds of millions of dollars we are now told they need to cut costs even more by opening a LHR base.

So, imagine how you would feel if:

You had been working for QF for a few years, enjoying the long haul trips and associated longe range flying pay etc.

You have a mortgage, kids, commitments that tie you to Australia.

You love the sun, surf and lifestlye of living in Australia.

Then all of a sudden you are told that an LHR base will be opened. The result of this is that you can no longer fly to London as therefore enjoy the long range flying and salary.

This will affect your ability to repay your mortgage due to lowering of wages.

You cannot just 'up and move' to the UK because of commitments in Australia.

Thats part of the reason why Australian based crew will fight this to the end.

Qantas have already mentioned an LA base being considered. If this were to open also we would have no long range flying at all. When I signed my employment contract it was for long haul flight attendant and the company has obligitions to ensure that contract is honoured.

leemo

6th Jul 2004, 06:19

First FAAA meeting today in Sydney and support was extremely encouraging.

Crew voted unanimously in favour of industrial action if the company refuses to keep a cap on overseas based crew at 370.

If the cap goes then we will not be able to stop the LHR base opening, followed by LA and wherever else the company want to set up base.

So make sure you tell everyone you fly with to think about the implications of the LHR base and vote to stop erosion of conditions which have taken years to achieve.

One thing is clear, crew will not stand by and let Qantas walk all over us. The industrial action could go on for some time this time around. Unlike last year when a half day stop work was called, this time it could be weeks. We have to show Dixon, Grant and Hassell we mean business.

oicur12

6th Jul 2004, 06:53

eft 2 primary,

"Poor moral at QF is a symptom of management practice not peoples attitude to it."

No - poor moral is a function of ones expectations.

"Any assertion of yours about poor CC performance at QF indicates an inability of MANAGEMENT to "performance manage" those that dont meet grade."

Your ability to absolve FA's from any accountability for their actions is breathtaking.

Mach 2 male,

"To deliver excellent service you need to spend money Eg Emirates". So how on earth are Southwest so successfull at top customer service.

Leemo,

"Do we get anything from QF? NO". Pardon me but dont you get a paycheck, staff travel, shares, super etc.

"I have calculated that my loss of allowances, long range flying and O/T will be around AU$25,000 per year due to my London trips going."

This comment says it all. 25000 less in allowances - do you know how much your competitors get paid to do the same job.

"So, imagine how you would feel if:

You had been working for QF for a few years . . . . . . . " Is it sympathy you are fishing for.

sinala1

6th Jul 2004, 08:33

Oicur I would be interested to know what your role in aviation is, that is if you have one?

leemo

6th Jul 2004, 08:47

oicur12, so exactly who are you? Are you one of the QCC morons?

"Do we get anything from QF? NO". Pardon me but dont you get a paycheck, staff travel, shares, super etc.

SHARES? LAST YEAR NO.

AS FOR THE REST OF COURSE WE GET A PAYCHECK AND SUPER. WHAT A STUPID COMMENT. WOULD YOU WORK AND NOT GET EITHER?

"I have calculated that my loss of allowances, long range flying and O/T will be around AU$25,000 per year due to my London trips going."

This comment says it all. 25000 less in allowances - do you know how much your competitors get paid to do the same job.

I REALLY DON'T CARE IF OTHER PEOPLE DO THE SAME JOB FOR LESS. WE HAVE AN EBA WHICH HAS BEEN FOUGHT FOR OVER MANY YEARS. THE COMPANY NOW WISH TO CHANGE THIS WITH NO CONSULTATION.

"So, imagine how you would feel if:

You had been working for QF for a few years . . . . . . . " Is it sympathy you are fishing for.

NO. JUST A FAIR GO FOR MYSELF AND OTHER AUSTRALIAN'S.

IF THIS BASE OPENS IT WILL REDUCE THE CHANCE OF AUSTRALIAN'S BEING EMPLOYEED BY QANTAS. JOBS WILL GO OVERSEAS. TAX WILL BE PAID TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, NOT AUSTRALIA, THEREFORE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES HERE.

THE COMPANY HAS PUBLICALLY STATED THEY INTEND TO HAVE 1000 UK BASED CREW. 400 HUNDRED AUSTRALIAN HAVE BEEN OFFERED POSITIONS AT THE BASE THE OTHER 600 HUNDRED WILL BE POMS.

THE 400 AUSTRALIAN POSITIONS ARE FOR TWO YEARS ONLY. AS SOON AS THE TWO YEARS ARE UP THEY WILL COME BACK TO AUSTRALIA ON LESSER TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAN THEY ARE GETTING NOW. THEY WILL THEN BE REPLACED IN THE UK BY ANOTHER 400 POMS.

TELL ME OICUR12, IF IT WAS YOU ABOUT TO LOSE $20K+ BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYER, WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO FIGHT IT?

IF THE ANSWER FROM YOU IS YES, THEN I FEEL YOU ARE A COMPLETELY SPINELESS HUMAN BEING.

The company will not get away with this.

Ascent

6th Jul 2004, 09:25

skyboy1919 & ib16uk

its all well can good to talk about cultural considerations but what about the australian passengers on the Asia-LON leg?From what ive seen and heard the plan is to shift all LON flying to the UK base. Seriously there is not a huge difference between aussies and the british. If it were an indian base or chinese base i could see the point.

about ppl not loosing jobs

what about the hundreds of shortlisters QF have been stringing along for over a year. most of which have been sent a letter saying thanks but no thanks - just before this announcement.

If QF decides to start a LA base i cant see any reason why QF should be protected on the LA route - no Aussie jobs at risk. I cant beleive the govt has been so quiet on this issue. 'specially in an election year.

mach2male

6th Jul 2004, 10:12

OICUR 12
Thank you for reading my thread.
Some points you may like to consider:
Southwest is a low cost carrier using a model similar to Ryanair,Virginblue etc.
Qantas is a full service premium carrier.
Qantas is the oldest carrier in the English speaking world
Southwest is a relative newcomer.
Southwest is a domestic Carrier servicing a closed market.
Qantas is an International Carrier.
I have been with QF for 25 years and have seen the quality of service I am able to offer my passengers detioriate to the point of embarrassment.Southwest has maintained its less expensive service level.Southwest crews are happy motivated people who are provided with the resources to do their job well.Sadly at QF crews are not provided with these resources.To do your job well you need to be proud not embarrassed.
As many will attest its not about the money,its about job satisfaction.
The LHR base is merely a symptom not the cause of discontent

oicur12

6th Jul 2004, 11:35

sinala,

My position within the industry is of little relevence to the debate. Your follow up query of "if you have one" (very schoolboy) has seriously undermined the credibility of any arguments you have or will put forth.

Leemo,

See above reference who I am - and are those working for QCC morons. But no, I do not work for a QF subsidiary.

"WHAT A STUPID COMMENT. WOULD YOU WORK AND NOT GET EITHER?". Yes, in the past I have, as have most pilots at some stage in their career. I only mentioned this as you
are the one that suggested that "Do we get anything from QF? NO..."
"
WE HAVE AN EBA WHICH HAS BEEN FOUGHT FOR OVER MANY YEARS". Very true, but the basing of FA's in LHR will not contravene your EBA terms in any way. Rostering efficiencies that reduce your DTA/Overtime/Allowances are unfortunate to your pay packet but not illegal. The lawers working for QF know this.

"TELL ME OICUR12, IF IT WAS YOU ABOUT TO LOSE $20K+ BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYER, WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO FIGHT IT?"

The 20000 dollars you refer to is allowance and overtime money, is it not. The salary paid to me by my 3 airlines has varied by between 10000 per annum and up to 40000 per annum for the same reason. I am fully aware I only recieve this money when I work for it - or in your case when you do LHR nightstops.

Mach2male,

I agree with you that in order to deliver good service, the staff at the "coal face" must have some belief in the product they are selling - they must see the value in the product themselves. The comments on this website indicate that this is not always the case at QF.

Although this my result in difficulty selling the product, one should not neccesarily conclude that this leads to job unhappiness.

This is a debate about money - let the managers at QF worry about how to serve the customers.

Re Southwest - I would uggest that WN operate in a much more competitive environment than QF. Have you heard of the IASC. Southwest do not have this protection.

London Jets

6th Jul 2004, 11:57

Moderators

Is there any chance of merging these qantas threads, there seems to be alot in the cabin crew forum about qantas and every time i look in the cabin crew forum another one has sprung up.

LJ

34R

6th Jul 2004, 12:16

London Jets

If you feel aggrieved at the QF content in your forum, ignore them. This reading is not compulsory.

GalleyHag

6th Jul 2004, 12:37

What people in the U.K. need to appreciate is that there are only 2 airlines we can work for if you want to be a Long Haul Flight Attendant, Qantas which dont offer permanent positions only contract and the best you can hope for is 10-11 months and the contract cannot just be extended after that period. We have Australian Airlines based in Cairns which is only small. Therefore the opportunity to fly long haul is limited compared to the U.K./ Europe. Auckland and Bangkok based crew can get 3 year contracts this is not even afforded to Australians. So while you may think we in Australia are complaining abou the new LHR all we are saying is that Australian jobs and futures are at risk with the introduction of this base.

oicurHATER

6th Jul 2004, 13:48

oicur

Just because pathetic little bum lickers like yourself have worked for free in the past (certainly not now that you have your ATPL)doesn't mean everybody will do it, some of us have a little self respect.

I wish all the QF Flight Attendant good luck on this issue and I truely hope the QF isn't making the MAM casuals out to be Strike Breakers, it wouldn't be fair to the MAM people or QF Flighties.

I wish you the Best of luck

oh and by the way

oicur I hope you get shafted royally by your current employer soon , hmmm maybe even in the SIM.

Have a lovely day
:ok:

sinala1

6th Jul 2004, 14:43

Oicur12 the reason I asked about your position in aviation is because we quite often get people posting in this forum who are not involved in aviation, so therefore have no concept of what its like for those of us who are involved - there was no "schoolboy" tones whatsoever.

At the end of the day, the QF Long Haul flighties (and no I am not one of them) are fighting to keep their pay and their lifestyle, and whats more keeping jobs in australia

I gaurentee you if they were opening a QF pilot base in LHR there would be a totally different song being sung on this forum

London Jets

6th Jul 2004, 15:16

34R

Many thanks for your opinion. I have no problem with a QF thread and you are very right I don't have to read it. I wasn't feeling aggrivated nor was I trying to aggrivate anyone so don't take it that way. The point I was trying to make was instead of having several threads about QF is there anyway they can be merged? over to the moderators.....

LJ

Q-Tee

6th Jul 2004, 16:05

Darlings .... anyone who knows me can vouch for the fact that I cant keep silent for long .....

Hello? anyone? sorry fellow QF longhaul crew, you are forgetting the 400 or so of us who are HAPPY to be going to the LHR base !!! Simple as that. There will be no strike for me ..... as even though I have supported all industrial action in the past years, and many years they have been, I WILL happily work on any strike days that are trying to stop the LHR base - there are a growing number of us that want to go there... let us ! You cannot stop the base, at least let those Australian crew who wish to be based there go ..... otherwise there will be useless industrial action, which will result in nothing except the LHR base being crewed only by UK people ... they will cut off the right for Aussies to work there if the FAAA et al kick up enough stink....

Secondly, if anyone is stupid enough to take out a mortgage based on an income INCLUDING allowances - then they have their own self to blame.... the first rule of flying is that you never, never, never, NEVER borrow more than your base salary can pay back ... as allowances and overtime are never guarenteed !!! I have paid off three separate mortgages on my base salary, I would never borrow against salary + allowances .... that is mindless stupidity ....

The FAAA should be wary ... they should be trying to control the conditions in the LHR base, not stop the base ...... there are too many people now willing to fight FOR the LHR base, to call industrial action over it .... the FAAA will self destruct if they arent careful.

The FAAA shouldnt be fighting a lost cause, they should deal with reality , and be trying to control the work conditions of the base. Because those of us (and there are many) wanting to go to LHR, will go regardless...

jetjockey7

6th Jul 2004, 22:15

Q Tee
You are typical of the Senior and Selfish who milk the bid system for what it is worth and then have the gall to crow about it.You have scant regard for your colleagues.Here you go again totally motivated by self interest.
I can only hope you wont be eating humble pie when that tired old body of yours starts falling apart after bouncing around between LHR and Asia for a couple of years.
We certainly arent interested in how many properties you have or how you paid for them.
How sad it is you waste your time lecturing people on how to manage their money.
The skies will be a much better,happier place when old crowing boilers like you leave.
A change of government may be the saving grace for the rest of us

sinala1

6th Jul 2004, 23:15

if anyone is stupid enough to take out a mortgage based on an income INCLUDING allowances - then they have their own self to blame

I have to agree with you on that one Q-Tee.... I fly short haul, and I have seen a great number of cabin crew who have borrowed on their salary plus approx 12 overnights per month, then when their overnights have dropped back to say 8 per month they have been trying desperately to find a flatmate to help them pay the mortgage... But sorry I diverge from the topic of the thread. I think most peoples main concern is when people like yourself who are happy and willing to go to a LHR resign/retire, those positions will then be offered to UK locals rather than aussies - therefore ultimately, over time, sending aussie jobs overseas. Personally I would like to see the jobs kept in australia for australians - someone pointed out earlier on this thread that its quite difficult to get an australian based international flying job (you really only have QF or AO at this stage). No disrespect meant to our colleagues in the UK, its just they have a lot more airlines that they can apply to (although yes admittedly their population is a lot higher too so I guess competition for those positions would still be quite tough)

YYC F/A

7th Jul 2004, 08:06

First of all, apologies for the long post, but I've tried to keep it all relevant and (hopefully food for thought) for the topic of discussion.

Right off the bat, personally I have grave misgivings about the whole concept of overseas bases as too often they are used to dilute the work conditions of the home based crew, and of course they can also severely curtail the flying on offer to the home based crew. That's not to say I have a blanket hate of of overseas bases, but if one is going to support the concept it should be with several key caveats in place.

The prospect of an International base being set up as a sub-contract seperate company is disgusting... It's not just about saving some $ on some slip allowances, it's about carving off jobs from mainline QF under the contract you've fought long and hard for over the years, and about redeploying these jobs outside of QF to a seperate company with cheaper wages and reduced T&C. What is even more disheartening is how many QF mainline crew are looking at a LHR base as a chance for a juant to Europe, but not realising how this is potentially the start of a serious shift in out sourcing crew to sub contract and subsidiary companies within QF that have significantly lower wages and terms and conditions.

There are other alternatives however.

United Airlines, still one of the largest airlines in the world, has overseas bases in FRA, LHR, CDG, HKG and NRT. The bases in TPE and SCL, and the sub contract bases (more about them later) in SIN and BKK have recently closed.

Here's the thing. At UA, the crew at ALL Intl bases are members of AFA, the union for F/A's at United. Second, all Intl F/A's are employed by UA, and not any quasi-sub-contract outfit. Third, all Intl F/A's work to the same contract, i.e. same pay, terms and conditions etc. Finally, while there are locally hired crew, precedence is given by means of a transfer list for US hired crew to transfer to Intl bases. They can stay there as long as they like (subject to visa regulations), and they continue to accrue seniority, work at same rates of pay, under same contract etc.

So, the Intl bases are to all intents and purposes no different from a US base, with US crew able to work there, transfer in and out, enjoy same contract, etc. Locally hired crew can transfer to other bases, but only if they have sufficient work authorisations/visas.

Flights are usually crewed by a mix of Intl and US based crew. So, on a typical flight LHR-SFO, you'll have a mix of SFO and LHR crew. Some flights e.g LHR-ORD will be all LHR crew, some all ORD crew. US crew are not being denied Intl flying to these places altogether, but some savings and more flexibility in scheduling is acheived by having the Intl bases.

Significantly, United opened up two 'local' non-union bases in SE Asia. These crew were hired locally under different T&C (much to the chagrin of the union, the AFA). However, the union agreement with the company was clear - these non union flight attendants were on board in addition to the agreed minimum crew complement. Further, in the event of labour reductions, these bases would be closed before any layoffs of union members. As a result of the post Sep. 11 F/A reductions, these bases were closed before any union members were furloughed. It is unlikely that these or any other 'local' bases will ever again be opened even when hiring recommences.

Now, if QF were to open a base, offer precedence to all QF mainline crew, have the base as a QF mainline base and not as a Quasi-Sub-Contract-Seperate-Company, allow you to maintain and continue to accrue seniority, work to same T&C as now, and transfer in and out accordingly, and have a mix of UK and OZ based staff working all legs of the 'Kangaroo' flights.... This would all mean that QF is still enjoying some cost efficiencies by saving on allowances, but that the integrity of the contract currently enjoyed by QF mainline crew is preserved without dilution of 'cheap labour', 'sub contracting', and reduced flying. Any shortfall in positions not made up from transfers from QF mainline would be filled by locally hired personnel. These (UK/EU) crew would be employed by mainline QF on same contract as rest of crew, but could only transfer to other EU bases or OZ bases if they had relevant work authority/visa/residency etc.

A 'win win' compromise worth fighting for if push came to shove?

sinala1

7th Jul 2004, 09:00

YYC F/A

I applaud your common sense. Your idea makes sense and does seem to be a win-win situation. It would be great that, if the base does go ahead, it went ahead in a similar fashion to the United overseas bases.

Does anyone know of any reason why QF could/would reject such an offer? And I am asking that from a factual point of view (we all know the common sentiments amongst crew towards QF at the moment)...

Alotta

7th Jul 2004, 11:02

pm sent to you Leemo

Q-Tee

9th Jul 2004, 05:37

jetjockey ..... what an amusing post, glad to see your 'go-team-lets-fight-this-together' bravado does not extend to senior crew :p

And yes - I do find your post amusing, childish, but amusing none-the-less

Just one note: who on earth do you think fought years ago to get the current conditions? Do you think QF just handed out the current conditions for longhaul crew out of kindness? Myself and others have fought many battles over many years to get to the current levels. Just because I am making the best of the inevitable changes coming does not mean that I haven fought for conditions in the past.

The people you have to thank for current QF longhaul conditions are the same 'old crowing boilers' that you think should not be in the skies ....

my, my , my the youth of today :}

jetjockey7

9th Jul 2004, 23:37

Q Tee,
My father was a "steward"with QF from 1967 to 1984.If you have been around for so long you would remember the SP dispute in 1981.It was people like you who didnt support your colleagues then.The current bid system was introduced in 1988 when people like you did a behind the scenes deal with management.Dont bleat to me about current conditions being attributable to you.If nothing else you are consistent:motivated purely by self interest
Oh and there is nothing wrong with being young,but a lot wrong with being old selfish and churlish.

oicur12

10th Jul 2004, 09:09

sinala 1,

"At the end of the day, the QF Long Haul flighties (and no I am not one of them) are fighting to keep their pay and their lifestyle, and whats more keeping jobs in australia"

Sorry - I must have missed the announcement from QF that they were about to reduce QF FA pay. When did that happen.

Dont you think it is inevitable that QF would move to base crews in LH destinations such as Europe.

captainrats

10th Jul 2004, 09:40

OICUR12
Sinala is right to a degree.The wages offered in LHR by QF are a reduction in wages(in real terms)compared to Australian Based crew.Particularly when you take into account the increased density of their flying.These wages could also provide leverage to maintain Australian based wages at current levels ie a reduction in real terms when taking into account CPI increases.
As far as the base itself is concerned,I am surprised QF didnt introduce them earlier(In Europe)The BKK base has not produced the desired efficiencies since the withdrawal of FCO and FRA services.(through BKK)The arduous nature of the flying has also meant that sick leave has been comparatively high.
The national identity argument is today irrelevant.The travelling public are today more motivated by price and schedule rather than the identity of their crew.
I would imagine that AKL BKK and LHR bases are just the beginning.Look for the bases with the highest room night requirement and thats where the next base will be.LAX would most certainly fit the criteria

FatEric

10th Jul 2004, 11:05

oichater - you typify the old fashioned dinosaur attitude that is so common in unions - the FAAA is a shining example.

The conditions enjoyed by QF flight attendants will go the way of the dodo- extinct.

The industry has changed - globally and domestically. Australia is playing catchup but the pace is gathering - just take a look at jetstar.

Pontificating about how unfare it all is will achieve nothing.

Are you going to manage change or be a victim of it.

I think i know the answer.

gigs

12th Jul 2004, 22:10

Many of my MAM work colleagues have been on the short list and sent 10 mth contracts or others an application for Qantas by express post for any job that may arise over the next year wed be interested in.Surprise surprise Qantas could offer for us to apply straight off the mark 10th long haul contracts. I filled out the form and ticked permanent.The people who are doing and applying for the contract think they are getting a 10 month probation for long haul.Seems to me its to cover short fall in staff between set up of base/bases as per press leak and or,cover labor in any industrial action.DOES any long haul guys know of this or, your opinion would be appriciated and,does the union know? /What do you think Qantas shall do with them on termination of their term.... THANKS...

Left2primary

13th Jul 2004, 01:35

Gigs,

someone i know who was on the waitlist for 18 months before being told thanks, but no thanks, was told by QF HR that QF will not hire fulltime longhaul FA's in AUSTRALIA for 5 years.

QANTAS, THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE

L2P

bonvol

13th Jul 2004, 04:08

To all those QF F/A's getting hot and bothered by oicur12's posts I just want to point out that he/she is very well known scab sympathiser from the pilot forums. He/she may even be an 89 dispute pilot scab.

Bearing this in mind my suggestion is to just ignore the offending posts.

oicur12

13th Jul 2004, 08:17

Bonvol,

once again I would suggest that my position in the airline industry is totally irrelevent.

But no, I have never been involved in a dispute.

You have referred to me as a scab sympathiser - an odd term. I have sympathy for many groups of people - those in detention centres in woomera for example. Or perhaps people with incurable disease. I dont have sympathy for people simply based on thier industrial persausion though.

You have suggested that the FA's on this thread ignore my comments as they may cause people to get "hot and bothered."

Thankyou, you have just inferred that my comments have some relevence.

It is my belief that to take on city hall - in the guise of Howard and Dixon - is to sign the FAAA's death warrant. Dixon is even hinting as such (for quite some time too). I suspect he is rellishing the opportunity.

I dont work for QF or its regionals (or jetstar) so I have little interest in how this latest confrontation pans out but I wouldnt want to stake my mortgage on the FAAA'a ability to make savvy industrial moves. Unfortunately, the weight of precedence is becoming more irrelevent as the Oz airline scene plays catchup. The rules are changing but the old fashioned attitudes are not.

Bonvol. Your post here and on other threads indicates you are extremely bitter about the outcome of 89. Why on earth should the FA's here take any notice of what you are saying?

oicurHATER

13th Jul 2004, 12:37

oicur

I am sure where ever it is you work management enjoy the 'poll you smoke'

Have a lovely day.

leemo

14th Jul 2004, 07:29

A quote from a press release from Uncy Geoff to his minions.

"...Qantas will take whatever action is neccessary to the keep the airline running. Should the threatened industrial action go ahead, we have contingency plans to ensure that our international passengers are not disrupted."

..Strike breakers..

B.C. How long do you reckon they could survive with strike breakers if we are on strike for a prolonged period?

Did you attend any of the FAAA meetings?

Leemo

Maaaaaaaaate!

14th Jul 2004, 08:36

Bonvol, thanks for the hot tip. We'll take it all with a pinch of salt, but I had to laugh at this one, tho........

I have sympathy for many groups of people - those in detention centres in woomera for example.
Yeah, righto Merlin :rolleyes:

leemo

15th Jul 2004, 07:11

Nothing juicy B.C.

Lots of truth though, unlike the company propaganda machine which seems to be in full swing at the moment.

Flying_Sarah747

15th Jul 2004, 16:37

I don't mean to be repeditive about this, but I just can't put it to rest even though I know I prolly should cause it's just eating me up inside, but does Qantas actually employ people through Qantas anymore, or do you have to be willing to go through these shoddy cheap labour companies like MAM or Adecco, who employ New Zelanders and people who ARE NOT AUSTRALIAN! How come all these people are posting posts like Qantas long haul here I come, when here we are, AUSTRALIANS, who were supposed to be employed in those roles 18 months ago have been kicked out off the shortlist into the cold???????

I'd hate to think how many AUSTRALIANS there are out there who waited and waited and waited and were mucked around etc. by Qantas for 18 months with this short list rubbish. Getting our hopes up, then to dash them and hey, then open up a London base. WOW, WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!! And on top of that, after sending us the e-mail telling us they'd chucked us off the short list they send us an e-mail from MAM!!!!! How about joining us through CHEAP CASUAL LABOUR! Erm, what ever Qantas, this is not Australian spirit at all, and quite frankly, I can't start to describe how devistated I am. And I know I'm not the only one.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to offend anyone, especially not anybody who's employed through MAM or Adecco, cause it's not your fault, it's Qantas, the company, and it's terrible. Good for you who strike, the company needs to learn that it can't just treat AUSTRALIANS this way.

Jet_Black_Monaro

15th Jul 2004, 23:12

As I have stated on many occasions I am wholly of the view the FAAA and some hardline agitators in their ranks are about to lead the whole bleeding lot into a trap that has been a very long time in the planning. The FAAA isn't going to win this one. And QF aircraft will absolutely keep flying.

We are witnessing the end of the stranglehold this union has had on QF for too long.

Mr Seatback 2

16th Jul 2004, 00:43

Don't count your chickens JBM...not everything that's going on right now is as it seems.

leemo

16th Jul 2004, 01:01

Flying Sarah,

Unless you are willing to work through MAM, Adecco (Kiwi, Thai) or Qantas UK there is very little chance of getting a permanent position with QF now. All thats offered are casual or temp contracts.

Its disgracefull that Geoff Dixon stands there and states 'We have created 10,000 jobs for Australians over the past 10 years'. But what terms where offered Geoff? And how many of those 10,000 are still around after there contracts finished, or the individuals realised they couldn't survive on casual rates?

Its sad to think that young people today cannot even hope to get a job with the national carrier. Unless you are Thai, Kiwi or British of course!

JBM - I think you will find the FAAA are simply doing there job, which is too follow what the members vote for.

Don't forget there are 4000 long haul crew and if we strike for more that a few days the company will NOT be able to crew all the flights.

FLIGHTS WILL BE GROUNDED.

A union is exactly that. A union of worked 'united' in there beliefs and rights to protect their conditions. If the company refuses to back down on there want to lift the overseas cap, then as a 'union' of employees we will go on strike. We will do it legally and give the company the required amount of notice of out intention.

If the strike lasts for more than a few days the shareholders will be asking Geoff Dixon if the financial loss through grounded aircraft (hundred of millions $) verses the pidly $18m a year saving is worth it?

Aussierotor

16th Jul 2004, 01:05

Flying Sarah,
I can see where your coming from ,but lets face it ,NZ is only East Bondi.As for other foreigners ,they may have language skills unlike most of us aussies.I think these days you need a mixture of crew who between them can communicate with the non english speakers.
Also labour companies are becoming a bigger deal probably for one reason----logistics.
Its not cheap labour--Qantas probably pay them roughly what they pay a Qantas employee but the agent take their piece of the action and pay you less.
Mining and other companies do the same,having a percentage of staff through an agency.After a while when others leave they get offered a permanent position---IF--they are good workers ,dont have too many days off etc .Reason being--these days its damn near impossible to fire someone----wrongful dismissal ,harrassment etc. Many jobs are advertised these days as casual for 6 months with chances of permanent work for these such reasons.
Also if there is a downturn the "temps" get put off to save the redundancies and other ramifications

Maybe not an ideal world for some,especially the worker ,but i can see a reasoning.

And as for industrial action mentioned in other threads ,its lucky Qantas dont have too many.They are far and few between and only have an impact for a short time,usually for a reasonable reason ,but well timed for the busy periods.

Ive worked for a large mining company and along with the oppositon strikes were a common occurence.I think we were second in mentality to the builders and the wharfies.
We would strike over the wrong flavoured icecream at work etc,about 5 different unions on the one site which would affect the whole show if just one was on holidays.
Friday morning meetings were a strike (get a long weekend).then people moaning by midweek if still out.
More or less could work out the result by when meetings were held ,number of boats on trailers waiting to head to coast etc.

The writing was on the wall------come a lean period,then a list of redundancies-----no law about that just cost them a lot of money.

Next-------offered work place agreements with a 10% payrise as a carrot.Many accepted while others didnt.Work continued as per normal,nothing changed,then the ones that didnt sign gradually worked out that why do the same job for less.In the end there was only a small minority of hardened unionists left and they havent got any power.

OK ,a few things have changed--only break in 12 1/2 hour shift is 1/2 hour for lunch,but can have a fatigue break(lucky they preach safety).There is a fair treatment scheme which if not settled through the channels ends up in courts.
But its not the cruel world where your getting shat on-----work is work.
Downfall for others is that with continuous production not as much people and machinery needed and now with a huge upturn employing like hell ,but once again, a percentage through agencies for a quick get out if things go pear shaped.

Thats bussiness i suppose.

Lost track here----point is.Dont get too cocky and think your safe.Upset the powers to be and anything can happen.Also how many are 100% unionated----you would be surprised to see if the carrot was dangled--------but your safe as your unions dont have much industrial action.

I accepted it and if things changed too much would have to consider options--stay here for $95g and benifits for a 44 hour week or go work for contactors for $50g---------or $80g ,but for a 72 hour week.

And the bottom line is----look at your own country.wages conditions etc.Sure ,others pay more but i see none of you trying to get into Garuda.

cabinfever

16th Jul 2004, 05:16

hi there...this is my 1st post on here..Just a quick intro...been flying for a number of years as a f/a and still thoroughly enjoy my job...like anyone i do have the occassional whinge.

When I was first told about pprune...I was skeptical....then i read through alot of the topics and I was hooked!!!...The QF LHR basing topic was like a soap opera...it took me a few hours to read it all!!!

Anyway!...My 2 cents

People have to understand one thing...The FAAA is not advocating any kind of hard line militant stance...It is not forcing anyone to act inappropriate...They are merely doing their jobs by representing us...its members...They have a very good team of people and 2 Industrial officers who know what they are talking about...Everything actioned will be WITHIN THE LAW...We are ultimately fighting for RESPECT...Hell yeah!...I'm scared about industrial action, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!...Sometimes you have to get up and fight for what you believe is right....Remember...IT's ALL ABOUT THE CAP-370.

thank you for letting me have a go

Left2primary

16th Jul 2004, 09:23

jbm [the virgin blue fa :} ],

yes your hysterical anti FAAA rantings are becoming a little boring.
Just what effects on QF have the FAAA had, given the strangle hold you assert?
Details, not lunatic rantings please.

L2P

Q-Tee

16th Jul 2004, 10:39

cabinfever

The one thing the FAAA is forgetting, is probably up to 400 of it's MEMBERS wish to go to LHR, the FAAA is supposed to represent all members, and yes the thought of industrial action is a scary one, but the FAAA should remember they will not get compliance for industrial action for those who wish to go to LHR - we see it as a great opportunity ..... I am a member, but as I wish to go to LHR base, I will not take industrial action to stop the base happening ..... nor will anyone else considering the opportunity now, or considering it after the first two year contracts are finished ....more and more people are wanting to go .... yes that may be bad for those not wanting to go .... but the cap expires in December, the company wil never,never,never re-negotiate it . that is clear... so let those wanting to take the opportunity take it !! The thing the FAAA should be fighting for is better conditions for those Aussie crew who wish to go there, they should be supporting ALL members .... those of us wanting to go to LHR pay the same FAAA (recently hiked) fees as everyone else..

ditzyboy

16th Jul 2004, 12:11

Don't you just love how teachers, nurses, foxtel workers, cab drivers, train drivers, bus drivers, librarians (the list goes on...) can strike at the drop of a hat. And people generally support their cause. Yet cabin crew (who have had one stint at industrial action in the recent future) are branded as "spolit" and "princesses" with a gung-ho, militant union out to ruin the company!

The FAAA has taken far less industrial action than many other unions in the transport/service industry.

My two cents.

Mr Seatback 2

16th Jul 2004, 12:14

Q-Tee

Will the QF girls and boys from Oz (like yourself) wanting to go to LHR operate under the EXACT same EBA Terms and conditions as they presently do/will do come next EBA?

leemo

17th Jul 2004, 03:20

Q-Tee,

The FAAA cannot represent any UK based crew. You would need to join a union in the UK. As you will be aware you will be working for Qantas UK not Qantas Australia. Terms and conditions are totally different. More work, less pay.

I doubt there are 400 long haul crew wanting to go to LHR. There are some but I feel the vast majority will come from short haul.

Why would the FAAA fight on your behalf for better terms and conditions? The opening of an LHR base will result in a huge pay decrease for Australian based crew and if you want to go to LHR then you will have to live with the terms given by QF UK.

As you are a member of the FAAA I suggest you do some research into 'Protected Industrial Action' before saying you will not take industrial action.

I just heard Christmas booking are down, maybe QF will negotiate the cap?

Flying_Sarah747

17th Jul 2004, 08:58

What exactly will these LHR base Qantas UK cabin crew be paid?

Do people actually realise how extraordinarily expensive London is? For example my little room at the end of the runway is just about AUS$1000 per month. No, I have not added an extra zero at the end of that, and I still have to share that place with 5 other people, $1000 is just for one measley room!

If QF UK are going to pay these cabin crew less than what QF Australia cabin crew get paid, then I'm afraid they just won't be able to live, it's as plain and simple as that, and I wouldn't suggest anybody give up their good paying job at QF Australia to move to Qantas UK!

leemo

17th Jul 2004, 09:25

Hi Flying Sarah 747,

The wage for Australian based crew working in the UK for a temporary period of two years if just over 24,000 Pounds. If you are an English person applying directly the pay is 18,000 pounds.

This includes long range sector pay and is based on an average roster. You also get meal allowences of approx 30 pounds per day.

How does whats being offered compare to BA?

QANTASTIC

17th Jul 2004, 09:32

I dont agree with the the UK crew base ! I feel if this is going to happen and the cap of 370 lifted it will be the start of of somthing big..The current QF will not be what it is today. I dont care what Q-Tee is saying..If this person wants to go to London good luck but dont expect the union to try and improve the working conditions or increase wages.. Take what is being offerd since it is your joice to go an work for QF UK !! I hope all the crew stick together as I know the ground staff are in full support of the QF crew,..If they can do this to crew nobody will be safe..Stick together and somthing positive might come about!!

Flying_Sarah747

17th Jul 2004, 10:27

Well, the 24 000 pounds sounds alright, I guess it's comparable to what you can earn at LHR Eurofleet, maybe a little less, but you can earn way more at LHR World Wide, which I assume is the same type of flying QF UK will be doing. Is it better than what you can earn at QF Australia???

The 18 000 pounds I think would be a little hard to live on though, but at least it's guarenteed, and not based on allowences and what trips you get.

None the less, I still think this LHR base sucks!

One more question...If you join QF UK, are there any chances of being transfered to an Australian base?

flyblue

17th Jul 2004, 13:27

Be Aware that Q TEE is not a longhaul flight attendant but rather a management representative who uses this forum and others to push the company barrow.Her comments are designed to sway those who are undecided. Q T stands for Qantas Tout.
Just wait for the howls of protest and denial
Argusmoon
even if Q-tee were what you say, it doesn't mean she can't have good points to add to the discussion: on the contrary, they would show the two sides of it. Surely it is then up to others, if it's the case, to disprove their point using logic and reason. Just because she (allegedly is) a manager doesn't make it useless by definition.

SydGirl

17th Jul 2004, 14:04

The FAAA will negotiate agreements for the benefits of it's members - this is true.

However!!! It is also a business, funded by members of the FAAA who's interests may not necessarily agree and coincide with each other.

There is no way the FAAA will support the UK base. By having a UK base, newly recruited cabin crew will become members of a foreign union (if represented at all), and Australian based FAAA members taking up the UK basing option will not be paying their FAAA fees as they won't be members of the FAAA.

This means a loss of revenue for the FAAA. Not exactly brain surgery is it?

Whilst I understand and respect Q-Tee's wishes to expand his/her horizons and gain an experience that has not ever been afforded before - do not do so at the expense of your colleagues and FUTURE colleagues.

QF is already implementing strategies to weaken the strength of the FAAA. It is important that crew stay unified and strong in order to achieve a positive result.

SG
:}

cabinfever

17th Jul 2004, 15:20

Well said Syd Girl!...We need to stick together if we are to beat these so called strategies which are attempting to undermine our conditions...
Remember ITS ALL ABOUT THE CAP-370

Argus

17th Jul 2004, 22:46

Argusmoon
Q T stands for Qantas Tout.

I think that your use of the appellation 'Qantas Tout' is offensive and juvenille. The use of the noun 'tout' implies some underhand espionage activities that Q-Tee is allegedly conducting on the part of QF management. You advance no evidence to support that proposition.

I have no axe to grind in this dispute - my profile is who/what I am. However, what concerns me is that I think we're about to see a re-run of previous bitter disputes (Ansett, Jetstar etc) in the aviation industry, where the union is split, and its membership turns on either each other or non union labour.

A UK comparison is the 1983 Miners' Strike. I understand there are mining communities in Northern England where to this day, hatred still runs deep and former friends, neighbours and colleagues refuse to speak to each other.

This, of course, plays into Management's hands.

I don't think the Union case is assisted by the posting of rude, offensive and potentially divisive material in an anonymous forum such as this. In doing so, it 'flags' to Management that the Union is deeply divided - a position that Management will then exploit via the 'divide and rule' principle.

Bodum

18th Jul 2004, 01:07

I think this thread is starting to become a bit personal and therefore aggravating and boring.

You will find Q-Tee is a Customer Service Manager, which means he/she does indeed fly and lets not forget he/she has been flying for many years and others need to respect that. Q-Tee in her position needs to be positive. He/She cannot lead crew and ensure a positive experience is received by the customers if he/she doesnt remain positive about this situation. What sort of respect will Q-Tee and other on-board managers receive if they jump on the "doom and gloom" bandwagon?

If Q-Tee and others want to go to London, that is their choice. Lets not get so personal people :D

Flying_Sarah747

18th Jul 2004, 17:05

I was just wondering if anybody knew, if you join Qantas UK from the UK, after the initial two years, are there any chances of being able to transfer to an Australian base??

leemo

18th Jul 2004, 20:44

Not at this stage FS. If you accept a position at LHR you would be working for Qantas UK, a subsidary. I would say its highely unlikely the company will introduce any transfer options for employees over there.

I would stick with BA and avoid QF for a while.

Q-Tee

19th Jul 2004, 10:18

Well, if you think I am management, then I spose you are right - I am an ONBOARD MANAGER .... that does make me management (although one without any agenda to push !!)

I am also someone who can see the inevitable, and choose to take the best out of it.

Many people see this as a great opportunity, the only people who dont are those who dont do any flights except LHR, and are banking on the allowances etc ... and those who cannot accept the inevitable change ... I feel sorry for those, but they cannot stop this base happening, although I doubt the real (high up)management would admit it ..... think about it, this isnt an overnight decision, its been one in the making for at least two years ... QF could not survive if it made operational decisions like this overnight or on a whim .... they have done their homework, and will have all the aspects covered ---> this is what they do.

I want to go to LHR, those that dont want the base to open are thinking of themselves and what they will be losing .... I am thinking of what those of us going there will be gaining !!!!

Oh and yes I am a union member ---> and no I will not take industrial action to stop the base opening as I see it as
a) useless (it wont stop the base) and
b) I wish to go to LHR .... simple as that.

And if anyone thinks that I could sway QF crew about this issue based on an anonymous forum which most crew probably dont read, well thats a bit odd. If I really wanted to sway crew I could do more 'swaying' on a ten day trip with the crew on my trips ....

Oh and Q-Tee = Cutie (which of course I am ----> for an old Lass :) )

leemo

19th Jul 2004, 23:13

Q-Tee = Senior and Selfish.

Of course QF have been planning this for at least a couple of years. However, this does not mean we cannot choose to fight it.

If we all sit around and be apathetic (as most Australian's are), the company will screw us big time. We already now LA is the next base on the cards. Meal allowances will be next, whats after that?

As a union we can show the company we mean business.

Q-TEE. If I ever fly with a CSM who tries to push their opinion on me I will tell them were to shove it, weather pro or anti company. On board the aircraft or briefings is not a place to mention personal feelings or beliefs.

twiggs

20th Jul 2004, 05:41

The one thing the FAAA is forgetting, is probably up to 400 of it's MEMBERS wish to go to LHR, the FAAA is supposed to represent all members

I think the members who wish to go to LHR are definitely in a difficult position.
If they strike it will go on their record and they will not be given a job in LHR as it is merit based.
I think they are a little shortsighted to support this offer of a LHR base at this stage.
It is just a QF tactic to get support for increased o/s base numbers which they certainly don't want us filling longterm, as is indicated by the 3 year maximum.
I'm sure a lot of the people who want to go to LHR also were opposed to increasing the amount of Thai and Kiwi based crew.
So its different now because its sounds like a nice thing for them in the short term.
It is not about the FAAA being opposed to a LHR base, it is about increasing the cap on O/S based crew.
In previous EBAs this was safeguarded, but a majority of crew who voted in the last EBA decided that the cap should expire Dec 17 2004 as this was the change to the clause made by QF definitely with something like this in mind.

Floaty

20th Jul 2004, 11:56

Mmmhhh... :hmm: Qantas UK are not likely to find experienced crew for 18K. London Heathrow is an expensive base! As a junior with a charter airline, I used to take home 15-16k per year, living around Gatwick, which is a cheaper area than LHR. I wouldn't spit on an 18K contract if I had nothing else to go for but I wouldn't leave my job for that! It sounds more like a package for 1st timers... Sorry Qantas!

FJ (not such a cheap labourer after all!) :)

Cart_tart

20th Jul 2004, 16:59

Nice one Geoff - you big TOOL!
Trying to open foreign bases with foreign crew and then complaining about foreign competitors in the following article. Check out this quote!

"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."

Perhaps the Government should take care and assess what QF is doing taking jobs from AUSSIES!

More special interest pleading from Qantas
By Pemberton Strong
20 July 2004

Qantas CEO, Geoff Dixon has taken time out from number crunching the 2003-2004 annual figures to read and sign a letter written by someone inside the airline that replied to the Australian Financial Review's July 13 editorial that called "Airlines must fight it out" and adjust to changing business environment.

And predictably it was a recitation of how unfair the world is, how many unfair competitors there are with big government owners, and all these people ganging up on poor little Qantas.

More special interesting moaning from the Qantas CEO, albeit with some good points. But its a bit like man bites dog analogy for news judgement in the media.

The fact is there have always been big and small government airlines with significant government support. Even those bastions of free enterprise, the big US carriers, are sucking on the government teats, as Geoff rightly points out.

What has changed is that Qantas is no longer on the teat in Australia, but sometimes gives the impression that it needs special protection to be protected.

Judge by these comments from Geoff's letter in today's AFR "Qantas has been quite explicit in asking Australian governments to adopt a balanced approach to liberalisation, with appropriate emphasis on overcoming various constraints that we face, and to be aware we are not competing on a level playing field"

"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."

Well, Geoff, what's changed? Qantas had been pushing this line for decades, both as a government-owned carrier and now privately owned.

The playing field in aviation has always been unbalanced from the time it started because of government involvement, even in Australia when Sir Reginald Ansett and then Sir Peter Abeles, at times, appeared to run domestic aviation policy.

But when Geoff says in the letter "Aviation policy cannot be driven by consumer interest alone" you see the real thrust of his point.

Consumers can get nicked, Qantas the company, shareholders and managers with their bonus schemes and fat option deals (and a complacent board) are all committed to achieving a 'flat playing field' and not to the consumer interest.

And when someone like James Packer is appointed to the board, its another sign that the airline's board is more interested in self perpetuation and the same old tune. That they appoint as a director a man whose family fortune depends on Government deals and licences, says it all.Free enterprise as a notion seems to be very selective on the Qantas board. But then this was a board that carried Bruvva John Ducker for years, and Trevor Kennedy..

And yet, Qantas has been slow to respond to consumers in this country: witness the success so far of Virgin Blue.

Some former competitors, mentioned in Geoff's letter, and current ones, would argue that Qantas is not averse to throwing its weight around in the market place to protect its interests. Whether that protects the interest of consumers at times is debateable.

But the most galling thing about this letter full of special interest pleading, is that in a month's time Qantas is going to report a boomer of a profit, possibly its best ever, with continuing strength in international routes a big factor (especially to Europe and the US, where there is little competition).

The real story for Qantas is an impressive one, but one Geoff and the Board continually downplay. That since being sold off a decade ago, Qantas has thrived in domestically and especially in the more competitive international business.

For all the talk of big nasty foreign airlines with government support, Qantas has skilfully played the percentages domestically and internationally, cut costs, spent billions efficiently re-equipping and then running the business for profit, not for the benefit of employees and public servants.

Its most profitable international routes are protected by bi-laterals and cosy inter government deals that 'tilt' Geoff's playing field even more the way of him and Qantas. Witness the Joint Services Agreement on the Australia London Kangaroo route with British Airways.

That excludes the most potent carrier in the region, Singapore Airlines. But Geoff would argue Singapore has government support, but that didn't stop Singapore from losing $1 billion in New Zealand. And it hasn't stopped Geoff from venturing into Singapore's backyard to look at setting up a low cost airline based in Singapore.

There's a big whiff of hypocrisy about all of this!

The past decade has shown that Qantas doesn't need mollycoddling and being serviced by favourable decisions from Canberra, led by the "Minister for Qantas", Transport Minister john Anderson.

It is a growing, hugely profitable business and a success story. But its funny you hardly hear that story from Coward Street in Mascot near Sydney airport, or the corporate offices in tow

==========================================

Q-Tee

21st Jul 2004, 11:30

Unfortunately for all QF crew ... this is a 'the chicken or the egg' argument ..... biscuit chucker ... you have said that those going to LHR dont give a toss about those staying in Australia? Well do those staying in Australia give a toss about those going to LHR ??? We could argue it back and forth for days .....

The fact is, there ARE (more than ) 400 crew wanting to go to LHR ....those crew have their own 'wants and needs' in mind when considering industrial action over the LHR base .... will they walk out to stop a LHR base ? nope

Are those staying behind considering looking after the LHR based people ??? Nope

The company has us all in a strangle, as there are enough crew wanting to go to LHR to cover a few days industrial action from those not wanting to go there ---> thats a fact.

There is no equal answer to this problem .... and it is a problem that was designed by management .... to have the exact effect that it is doing now .... but rest asssured, there are a heap of people who see this as an opportunity rather than a scurge ..... and thats the current problem for the FAAA...

I have no answers, except that the LHR base suits me, as with (seemingly) over 400 crew .... so the FAAA should take that into account before taking the ' those left in SYD' approach, cos it cant work --> a lot of the FAAA members wish to go ....

As for the personal attacks on me by telling my side on this - well I could care less ..... I am going and nothing will change my mind on that :p and there are a lot of others like me who wont give up this opportunity ..... opportunities like this for us who are older than the UK Work Visa requirements are few and far between....

And for the "SELFISH AND SENIOR' cries about me , well that has no foundation, as I will be giving up the seniority system to go there .... It will be allocated rosters, no seniority involved :p And I could care less about that too ....

Chicken and egg argument again .... I am a ' Selfish Senior' well those calling me that must be 'Jealous Juniors'

It's an arguement that will never end .....................

And to be frank, I dont really give a toss :)

jetjockey7

21st Jul 2004, 22:20

Q TEE is perhaps the most pompous,self important individual in this entire forum.I would be interested in having a conversation with her after she has been on the LHR base for a year.
TWIGGS is correct.....the base has been brought about by flight attendants themselves(albeit originally through the FAAA)
1.In EBA 5 the FAAA to agreed to the establishment of offshore bases with a cap but no date limitation.
2.EBA 6,amongst other things,accepted the expiration of the cap.The EBA was voted on and accepted by a majority.
The industrial relations initiative was lost by many individuals voting naively in the affirmative(the yes vote)for EBA 6.This forum would not exist had the vote been NO.Unfortunately circumstances also worked against a different outcome with the advent of SARS and the Iraq war.During periods of uncertainty we make more conservative decisions.In this instance we will live the ramifications for years.
We the(the rank and file) members of the FAAA made this decision and we will now live with consequences.
There is no one to blame but ourselves!

RaverFlaver

21st Jul 2004, 23:47

I disagree.....

I think Q-Tee is one of the most level headed, open minded, smartest and intelligent individual on this forum.

I have no idea who you are Q-Tee, but personally I think you rock!

That's all.

Theeya's :)

mach2male

22nd Jul 2004, 06:43

Overheard some cabin crew discussing the LHR base and how they would handle the short standown time.
Solution:GO SICK !
I have a feeling that there will be alot of STANDBIES in LHR.These people obviously have little concern for those who will have to replace them.

Left2primary

22nd Jul 2004, 08:48

raverflaver,

you would be best commenting on things you understand.
Have you been to one of the FAAA meetings?
The London base represents the biggest attack on the conditions of longhaul crew that I have seen in nearly 20 years.
It also spells the end of fulltime QF longhaul positions for Australians for many years.
qtee may be full of pompous self importance and self interest but even she knows the implications.
Her problem is that she is so full of self interest that she doesnt care.
L2P

RaverFlaver

22nd Jul 2004, 10:31

L2P,

If you read my post I wasn't commenting on the issue at all. My comment was a personal comment about Q-TEE.

You're right it is an issue I don't know a lot about and I have not been to an FAAA meeting as I am not a flight attendant.

And so are you telling me that IF I did want to make a comment on this thread that I am not allowed to because I don't know anything about it........this is a chat forum that encourages open discussion right????

My apologies for assuming otherwise, I will just sit back and let know-it-alls like yourself make future comments.

Have a nice night,

Raver :)

bolto_79

22nd Jul 2004, 12:44

Hi All

Come on people get a grip...can I ask where in your employment contract that you signed before joining QF does it state:

A) You will be flying to LHR for the rest of your contract with QF
B) You will be paid over 12K in allowances per year

If you can please point it out to me, cause I cant see it.

What QF is trying to do is get better usage out of its crew. They are also setting up a base in BNE, can't you people see what they are trying to do:

POINT TO POINT FLYING

As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?

SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL

Does QF have bases there??? yes they do and it home for most of you. So why set up a base in LA where they are going to be overnighting in Australia anyway (hotel, allowances, transport)

All it sounds to me that SYD based L/H crew have had it to good for to long, and now they are getting flying like the other bases (MEL & PER) and now "it quick do something about it, as it OUR flights to LHR thats been taken away", but who cares about the sh*t patterns that MEL and PER crew has been doing for 3 yrs

I understand the LHR base is not for everybody, SO DONT TAKE IT if it doesnt fit with your plans, but dont put anybody down that wants to take it..

onQ

22nd Jul 2004, 15:22

bolto_79
you mentioned

[POINT TO POINT FLYING

As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?

SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL]

firstly, let me state - i understand QF have strenuously denied that a base in LAX is under consideration - but there again, at the last crew forums, so was a BNE longhaul base.....??

So, what would QF have to gain from an LA base?

i) Crew on contracts, not directly employed by QF, so good for the bottom line.

ii) On lower rates of pay, not subjected to the same rest requirements after a long range sector.

iii) Able to do JFK as a shuttle.

iv) Reduced accomodation requirements in LA

v) Increased duty hours per bid period

vi) Flexibility to introduce ORD / DFW shuttles or other services to utilise aircraft sitting on the ground for 12 - 15 hours

Along with LAX, you could argue, why does QF have a need for a crew base in AKl.
There is no cultural requirement (though i'm sure many would argue otherwise)
The AKL based crew don't purely operate point to point sectors, they also operate patterns ex SYD.

As an F/A, i'm proud to work for QF.
The vast majority of people I work with - likewise.

We have a vested interested in ensuring that this company is competitve, viable and secure because all of our futures depend on it.
My biggest concern is that there are a lot of managers out there now, running around trying to justify why they are in their jobs.
One of the easiest targets out there is the crew.

Yes, the world and industry have changed, there are a lot of efficiencies to be gained, however there are ways to do this without the knee jerk reation of opening crew bases left, right and centre.

Maybe it's time for the company, the crew and the FAAA to sit down and work out the best way to approach this because at the moment we have an irresistable force - and an immovable object!!!

captainrats

22nd Jul 2004, 23:23

ON Q is on the money. The efficiencies gained by QF establishing a base in LAX would be similar if not greater than those achieved in LHR.
Cheaper Labour(Lower wages,No long range component)
Rostering efficiencies(no 50% standown)
Less room night requirements
Lower allowances(from shorter stays in Sydney,MEL and BNE)
This seems to be the crux of the Great Base Debate.The LHR base is the thin edge of the wedge.Once it is established surely more will follow.
Those that voted yes in the last EBA should have paid attention to those advocating a no vote.A NO VOTE would have meant the cap(370) remained and there would be NO LHR base and NO potential LAX Base.
The damage has been done and you must now suffer the consequences of naive indifference!

34R

23rd Jul 2004, 00:01

With all of the mud flying around this thread it is actually quite hard to glean some facts on the case at hand, so if I have missed the ball entirely on this one, consider this an apology in advance.

Did Qantas crews actually vote in their last EBA to remove the cap on foreign bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

If the answer to that is yes, then as I pick myself back up off the floor, all this thread highlights is just how out of touch some of you actually are. You and your union agreed to this. End of story, rubber stamp and all.

In not saying no to lifting the cap, I'm sure you didn't expect what is unfolding now to actually happen, but you should have! You all know how rutheless your management is and it would only have been a matter of time before they jumped on this one to squeeze the bottom line even further.

Doesn't say much for your reps or your own forward thinking. Sorry guys, you dropped the ball on this one, big time.

captainrats

23rd Jul 2004, 02:52

34R
Those who voted yes are most likely the individuals complaining loudest now.
They did not support their union executive when it came to elections.The no voters vented their wrath and voted out the entire union executive.
We did drop the ball and the damage done is iretrievable.

argusmoon

23rd Jul 2004, 03:13

You are LHR based and have just arrived into Sin.After 24 hrs you are called on to operate the QF5 to FRA......the aircraft broke down and the crew are now out of hours.After a 24 hour slip in FRA you operate back to SIN.After a 24 hour slip you are called upon to supplement a shortage of crew in PER.......operating PER/SIN return.A further 24 hrs and you are on your way back to LHR.You have lost your next trip and are now on S/BY....roster stability is shot to pieces.
The FAAA is not able to support you since you are working for an off shore subsidiary.
You have no hours limitations and no slip formula.Since your original slip was reduced you were overpaid in allowance and this needs to be returned.
You do not have a duty hours limitation.Is your roster 8 weeks or 4 weeks in duration?Can you be placed on S/BY in a foreign port?What is your minimum rest entitlement?
Can you be used to cross crew with Sydney based crew?
How often will you be on S/BY?
How many DHCs will you receive for S/Bys(if any)
All questions that need to be asked before making a commitment

34R

23rd Jul 2004, 03:48

Captainrats

Yes I agree with you completely, and I realise my statement was very generalised with regards to the acceptance of the EBA. The people who had the foresight to vote no are the ones more than entitled to say "I told you so!" Unfortunately, that's about all they are entitled to.

Sadly, as the ultimately unanimous view of the department was a yes vote, the LHR base and its numbers, whatever they may be, carries the endorsement of the QF flight attendand group, and that is all management will see in this situation. All the screaming and shouting and talk of industrial action will, in the long run, have very little effect I'm afraid.

For that reason, people like Q-Tee seem to be the only people involved that are treating the situation with the slightest bit of common sense. She knows what management intend to do, and she knows they intend to do it because the flight attendant department, on the whole, allowed them too. That course of action is set and there is not turning back. So now she has 3 choices.

1. Accept the situation and stay here

2. Accept the situation, treat it as a bit of an adventure and be part of the off-shore base and in the process, make sure as many of those positions go to Australians

3. Not accept the situation and resign

All choices are perfectly valid, and any talk of her, or anyone else for that matter, who decides to follow either one of them as being selfish or contributing to the continued decline of your conditions is kidding themselves. That little nail was hammered in the day your EBA was signed off.

Q-Tee

23rd Jul 2004, 13:16

leemo ---- sorry I must not have explained myself well ...

I would NEVER try to push my views on crew at briefing or on a flight ....

I was just saying that the accusation of trying to push my views on this forum were ridiculous .... if I wanted to, I could more effectively make my views known to my operating crew, than on this (largely unread) forum ....

I dont have any problem with others that have views that differ to mine, nor would I try to 'sway' them to my point of view .... on this forum, however, I am allowed to voice my view on this issue .... and nor do I really care if here (or elsewhere) people do not see/ respect my point of view .... as others will not change my stance on this issue :)

and for whoever mentioned it .... if I come back from LHR and the seniority system is gone .... trust me ... I would not care either way .... it might mean I will finally get some decent slips in NRT - which I currently cant bid for :) I aint that senior ;)

bunkmaster

23rd Jul 2004, 23:47

most of the current cabin crew are going to fight this base leading up to december. ( the end of the current eba). watch this space.

mach2male

24th Jul 2004, 00:47

BUNKMASTER,
How can you fight something that the majority of your colleagues have agreed to by voting yes to the EBA ?It would also appear that there is a long Q to participate in the base.

leemo

24th Jul 2004, 01:04

There seems to be a misconception here on the board that crew voted out the CAP in the last EBA.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

In fact at the expiration of every EBA each point within it becomes renegotiable. There is no legal way of altering this so an agreement can be made that the cap will always be there or will exist until a certain date in time. This is set out by industrial law.

So we did not vote to remove the cap on Dec 17th 2004. Thats just the date of the expiration of the EBA. During past EBA negotiations Qantas agreed to have the cap inserted back into the current EBA. This time around Qantas will clearly fight tooth and nail not to have a cap and the crew will fight tooth and nail to ensure a cap is put back in the EBA.

Mach2Male - There may be 400 hundred crew willing to take the LHR base (bad move) but there are a LOT more crew not willing to let this happen.

mach2male

24th Jul 2004, 01:20

LEEMO
If you get a copy of the EBA you will find that there is a stand alone clause that specifies that the cap expires on 17.12.04 irrespective of the EBA which stays in place until another is negotiated.I have had a conversation with Mijatov regarding this matter.This is why he led the NO vote.It was the way in which this particular clause was structured that caused him so much angst.Talk to him you will see that this is the case.
Oh,and Leemo,I voted no.

leemo

24th Jul 2004, 03:21

M2M - Thanks for that info. Mr. Mijatov's speech recently led me to believe differently hence the post.

We can still, and have to fight this however.

bunkmaster

24th Jul 2004, 04:06

yes there are collegues who are going to put their name down for london but if lets say 10% go for the base, 30 % do nothing and the rest fights the cap then their is certainley room for geoff dixons exit from qf. lets remember that robert ayrling from ba lost 180 million pounds (or thereabouts in a short time) which had ba management begging f/a's to come back. no, qf f/a's arent as militant as their ba collegues but i think we reach to point where enough f/a's contemplate to go sick for a couple of alternate days/weeks. if you convert the remaining 60% or maybe only half to sick leave over christmas and beyond (cant be sacked or intimitated with a certificate) then dixon is out. no company board in any country can sanction ongoing industrial action costing in a short period tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. i am sure they qf works on various plans but again if f/a's keep the sick leave going (as ba did taking alternade days as sickleave) then there is no way qf can keep planes in the air. lets not forget if our collegues on overseas trip decide to ring in sick with various upline illnesses then it would expatite the chaos.
make no mistake i was a very loyal man to the company with lots of sick leave up my sleeve but i have reached the point were it is time to come out fighting.

twiggs

24th Jul 2004, 05:05

How can you fight something that the majority of your colleagues have agreed to by voting yes to the EBA ?It would also appear that there is a long Q to participate in the base

Just like to mention that the last EBA was voted in only narrowly, and was done so primarily because it was recommended by the 3 EBA negotiaters who were subsequently forced to resign when the disgust toward them grew as the repercussions of such a recommendation became apparent.
The other factor was the major propaganda campaign that QF implemented scaring most people into thinking that they had to vote yes or risk losing everything.
Mijatov, Smedley and others made a big effort to spread the word that the EBA was flawed but it was not enough.

I just hope that Q-Tee and the other short-sighted people who wish to go to LHR are attending the FAAA meetings so their views are heard and their questions are answered.

mach2male

24th Jul 2004, 06:19

Twiggs
In a democracy a majority is a majority no matter how small.It is now up to the FAAA(with our support)to try and limit the damage.
Someone here suggested a change of government may help.
I am not happy as I have been doing LHRs back to back for years(Even the dreaded QF31/32)This will have a trickle down effect as people like me will have to look for other trips to do.

Left2primary

24th Jul 2004, 09:56

The white hot fury I see and hear from Longhaul CC at the "thug from wagga's" attacks on their conditions will manefest itself at the end of the year in the sort of industrial chaos that QF has NEVER seen before.

Lets hope for the shareholders sake that QF's contingency plans include some sort of revenue generating activity for their expensive 5 story inanimate objects.
Flight deck visits at $10 a pop.
Corporate function perhaps?

What is amazing and unprecedented is that this support for the FAAA's cause spans all FA factions.Girls, guys, straight, gay, language speakers, junior and senior.
QF longhaul have had enough and even the most moderate of individuals are ready and GAGGING to act.
The overwhelming sentiment that I hear is, "bring on December".

QF management are about to have their own words thrown straight back at them in finding that Longhaul will do with THEIR labour, "whatever they want, whenever they want, and there is NOTHING QF management can do about it".

Geoff Dixon's megalomaniacal and reckless management style will ultimately be his own downfall.

One person will ultimately be held responsible for the chaos we are going to see come years end.
His days are numbered.

Analysts predict a 2005 NET profit for QF in the order of AUD $850 million.

QANTAS.THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE.

L2P

BTW Geoff isnt eating on board longhaul AC any more.
Is he on a diet or too scared to eat.....................?

twiggs

24th Jul 2004, 10:16

I was trying to illustrate that even though the last EBA was voted in, it was done blindly, and I believe that there is an overwhelming majority of crew opposed to an o/s base cap increase.

captainrats

24th Jul 2004, 11:37

TWIGGS
Even though the EBA may have been signed off under duress it is legally binding.Even though in hindsight many would have made a different decision,the door has been opened.Strike action will not alter the outcome.From what I understand Dixon is spoiling for a fight.Think of all the MAM casuals,Jetstar,Australian Airline crew that can be trained in a day to operate a 747 or A330.
You would be locked out and after a couple of months some would be invited back ON CONTRACT.In the meantime who pays the mortgage.
All of this is unjust and unfair but it is what was negotiated.Add to this the deal shorthaul did with regional flying and bands payments,2003 was a very bad year for longhaul crew.
My friend the days of milk and honey are over.The only person happy about any of this is Dixon

leemo

24th Jul 2004, 12:22

Quote - You would be locked out and after a couple of months some would be invited back ON CONTRACT

captainrats - please let us know why we would be invited back on contact?

The FAAA will do every thing LEGALLY, which mean no industrial action until we are protected (Dec 18th). We will give company appropriate notice to ensure members are taking 'protected industrial actions'.

And the company does not have enough crew from MAM casuals, Jetstar, Australian Airline to cover the flying program for very long.

mach2male

24th Jul 2004, 16:38

Leemo
What would you do if you were Dixon and a group of employees were trying to bring your business to a halt.Captainrats is i think just trying to offer scenarios.
There are classes of MAM fa`s going through now.There are also 370 AKL and BKK crew not covered by our award.Do the numbers.
WHAT DO YOU THINK DIXON WOULD DO?
He would not sit idly by and do nothing!
Industrial action is a 2 way street.Dixon can do to us what we are doing to him.He is a lot of things but stupid isnt one of them.

leemo

24th Jul 2004, 23:34

M2M, my question to Captainrats was why we would be invited back on contracts?

At the recent FAAA meetings we were told that as the FAAA would take industrial action ONLY when legal to do so i.e. at the expirey of the current EBA, which means we would be taking 'protected industrial actions'. From what the FAAA reps said this means the company cannot terminate / change our existing position in any way. As long as we give the company 3 days notice etc.

My interpretation of Captainrats posts is that if we go on strike, Dixon will only let us go back to work on contracts and not permanent. The company have no legal ground to do this according to the FAAA.

I believe there are 150 casual going through training now, these plus the 370 O/S crew, Jet Star, Australian would not be enough to fully cover the flying program for more than a few days.

Did you attend the FAAA meetings? They said if/when there is industrial action it will be for a longer period this time.

Argus

25th Jul 2004, 02:23

The web site of the Office of the Employment Advocate (http://www.oea.gov.au) (OEA) contains some helpful questions and answers.

The OEA notes that under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, employees have only a limited right to take industrial action.

Can employees ever lawfully take industrial action?

Yes, but only when it fits all of these rules:

• it happens during a properly notified bargaining period (which starts seven days after one party notifies the other and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that it intends to seek to reach a certified agreement);
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement before the action is taken; and
• the employer gets 3 (three) working days’ written notice of the proposed industrial action.

This is called "protected" industrial action.

If an employer is bargaining with employees and unable to reach agreement, the employer can apply to the AIRC to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. If the employer is successful, that puts an end to the protected status of the industrial action. In making its decision the AIRC will consider whether the employer has been trying to seek agreement in good faith.

What action can an employer take during a bargaining period

An employer can lock out its workers and stop them from working if:

• the lockout occurs during a properly notified bargaining period;
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement;and
• the employer gives written notice to each party with whom it is negotiating – so if there is more than one union involved the employer must give the notice to each union – that it will be locking the gate/telling them to go home.

The employer must give 3 clear working days notice unless the lock out is in response to the union/s industrial action.

Can an employer sack employees who take industrial action?

It is against the law for employers to dismiss an employee if they are taking protected industrial action.

An employer must still follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action. There is no short cut just because they may have broken the law.

Does an employer have to pay its employees when they take industrial action?

It is against the law to :

• pay any employee who has taken industrial action;
• do a deal whereby they get paid for work they haven’t done;
• agree to pay them as part of settling a dispute; and
• for an employee to accept payment for industrial action

What is industrial action?

It’s when employees do something which restricts, limits or delays their work, such as imposing go-slows or work to rule bans –not only when they walk off the job.

leemo

25th Jul 2004, 03:25

Thanks for the info Argus.:D

Q-Tee

25th Jul 2004, 14:03

L2P

What is amazing and unprecedented is that this support for the FAAA's cause spans all FA factions.Girls, guys, straight, gay, language speakers, junior and senior.

Luv, last year we had 90% support for the stop work meetings .... it didnt stop one single flight, at worst it delayed a couple ...

Now there are 370 overseas based crew, 300+ MAM casual crew, 120 fixed term contract crew (AUS based), and 400+ crew wanting to go to LHR ..... all who will work on a strike to keep the LHR base happening .... is it right or wrong? I dont know.... thats for the gods to decide.....

Is it reality???? Yup, definately ... you have over a third of the total numeber of longhaul crew (plus those who fall out of the above categories who will just wish to work for their own reasons) working during a longhaul industrial dispute ..... that equates to any longhaul industrial dispute being useless .... if the FAAA cant see this, then they are gonna lead the guys to slaughter ....

And yes (as I have done in the past) , industrial action during an EBA period is legal ...... but so is the 'locking out' of striking employees if they arent seen to be working with the company to compromise on the issues ....

Be careful guys......

but good luck too .... if I thought industrial action to stop the LHR base would keep things as they are, then I would go for it too..... I just see the LHR base as a certainty, and dont want to give up everything else to stop it.... so I will take it to make the best of it .....

Left2primary

25th Jul 2004, 15:01

qtee.............luv,

last years stop work meeting was for 14 hours.............period.

QF were forced to pax [They had 370 then] AKL and BKK based crew, days before hand, all over the place to keep AC in the air.

Over 1000 crew attended the meeting at Randwick. Didnt YOU see the footage on TV?

QF also locked out CC emergency proceedures trainers for days, whilst they trained around the clock, office staff as scabs.

Do you think that the office staff will be so willing to scab this time given the promises of FA jobs that never materialised? Once bitten twice shy.

QF don't have a willing pool of line managers to scab either. [ Look at the thanks they got. A right royal shafting, without even a kiss]

You know very well the mood of FA's re these issues. I have been around for close on 20 years and have never seen such hatred for anyone in QF, much less any current CEO.

CC are only one group in QF thats had enough of Osama Bin Dixon. SIT are working to rule and have a ban on overtime as they battle his rampant corporate greed.

Airports are very unlikely to rush out and scab in force during our battle.

Dixon is running this company into the ground in an effort to maximise short term profits and HIS performance bonuses.
He and his fellow" pigs at the trough" have no concern for QF's long term health.

To create completely unnecessary industrial chaos at the same time as OUR company is enjoying its most profitable period in its entire 80 odd year history demonstrates a dangerous, reckless and out of control ego.

There is only ever one way to deal with a thug and bully.
Longhaul are going to hit him as hard as they can, right between the eyes and there is NOTHING he can do about it.

qtee luv.......................what pleases me so much is that YOU know it.

L2P

Quote "but good luck too .... if I thought industrial action to stop the LHR base would keep things as they are, then I would go for it too..... I just see the LHR base as a certainty, and dont want to give up everything else to stop it.... so I will take it to make the best of it .....

Get me a bucket...........you make me sick.

BTW Had it occurred to you that the 120 AUSTRALIAN contractors ONLY stand to gain a position beyond 11 months if the FAAA win their battle?
I guess not.

QANTAS. THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE

bunkmaster

25th Jul 2004, 20:15

reading how Q-tee carries on i must think she is a former line manager or sitting in qc4 hedging her bets.
now as i mentioned earlier if enough f/a's go sick alternating days and having a sick certificate qf cant lock u out or offer you a contract on your return. all this angst about getting locked out is rather premature. in addition its going to be christmas and a time for qf not to play around too much with bad publicity. those of you interested go to crikey.com.au type in qantas and you can find enough info as how geoff and his mates treat the travelling public and their responses.
every f/a should channel their energy into getting emails asking for support in keeping aussie jobs to all members of the parliament, go to their website aph.gov.au
actu website
stae and local government websites
media as in newspaper, tv, magzines and so on
just think a thousand or so f/a's keep emailing all members of the above websites and others on a weekly basis till christmas what effect would it have. and lets not forget an election is on the card. yes pollies and the general public dont give a toss about us but a sustained campaign on aussie jobs will have an impact.
all i say lets take the emotions out of it and lets treat this project as a positive achievable objective.

just a little reminder you (and dont forget to tell all your collegues) can air you feelings about the current state of the airline in the upcoming employee survey.

Jet_Black_Monaro

26th Jul 2004, 02:30

When one reads some of the extreme views of some posters, it is clear why GD wants to push through significant change at QF. I feel he actually wants you to walk so he can invite back who he wants.

As for using sick leave to cause massive disruption, well I wrote some months back about how radical unionists will go to great lengths to damage their own employers brand. I was ridiculed for doing so but time has now shown that my prediction was correct by reading the preceding posts.

Why hide behind sick leave? Do you not have the courage of your conviction to see you through. It also goes towards confirming the long held view that the FAAA sees sick leave abuse as appropriate and has never been really serious about management of it.

Having read the extreme views of some, my view has strengthened and I wish GD well in his reforms. It would appear culture change is appropriate at QF long haul.

bunkmaster

26th Jul 2004, 03:53

having read the comment from jet black i can only say you are i think somewhat limited in your knowledge whats going on inside the big roo or you are sitting above the second level and happily st***ng the pot.
lots of customers ( iam talking CL,PL,GD Frequent flyers ) out there who has somehow an inside knowledge or dealings with GD and his mates call them very arrogant.( that label only started appearing last year). not my call but i am a good listener on long nights in the galley
since cabin crew decrewing and minor wageconcessions in the last 3 years GD and mates increased management levels in QF (not the QF group) by around 20% and costs associated by around 37%. "this in times when we continue to do bad, wagefreezes, things look ugly,etc". not to be outdone the QF board & excecs also had their hands in the till and pushed up their fees by around 27%-32% (check it out on last years annual qf statements/cant wait for this years addition)
that does not take into consideration addecco fees (contractors who run the bangkok and auckland cabin crew base) .
this proposed LHR base will end up costing me 10-15% of my wage. now do you give up any of your wages without a fight?
morale is low, equipment is old (ask any CSM out there how often they apologise to passengersregarding the IFE, lack of stores and so on). these days its the blame between departments, which at the end the customer is really the one who feels the impact and he/she ands up going to competitiors. currently we loose around 10% pa to emirates alone i got told by a marketing guy. no, its not because of crew.
lets face it protected industrial action is not the only way to go, takes too long, thats why sickleave and other actions have a more immidiate and serious impact. and as for the qantas brand and its impact,read the latest upgrades from brokers (its factored in).
but GD has no problems spending hundreds of thousands if not millions on fighting cabin crew to protect and increase his and other managements bonuses. do you really think gd and his industrial mights play fair. give me a break

Left2primary

26th Jul 2004, 04:09

jbm,

you are a virgin blue FA, are you not?

Once again please tell us the damage the FAAA have done to QF given the strangle hold, you assert.

L2P

Red Hot Chili Pepper

26th Jul 2004, 04:58

jbm,

right on. good post. I agree with your sentiments.

BM,L2P etc,

A smart faaa would keep its head down, take the salary, conditions, perks, staff travel etc and not draw attention to how unrealistic your industrial leaders are.

tread carefully - striking will result in the end of the faaa (something dixon has been looking forward to) and tears from a lot of FA's not welcome back into the fold (sans previous employment conditions).

Left2primary

26th Jul 2004, 05:10

rhcp,

thanks for your "informed" comments and advise.

Please do all of us a favour by reading back a few pages. You may just learn something.

L2P

sinala1

26th Jul 2004, 07:52

Hi Folks

Please dont think that JetBlackMonaro's thoughts and sentiments represent those of the greater DJ cabin crew population... he/she is most certainly entitled to their opinion, but please dont think we all feel the same. I personally hope to see QF Long Haul CC maintain their salary/wages/conditions etc, even if I don't necessarily agree with striking as a way of getting it (although I can also see how you are having difficulties finding other options!)

Good luck, hope you guys pull through as the winners :ok: :ok:

Cheers

leemo

28th Jul 2004, 03:29

The applications for the UK base are now open for CURRENT AUSTRALIAN BASED QANTAS CREW only.

Amazingly the application form asks for your 'Current employer' details!!!

On another note - Did anyone attend the W.A. FAAA branch meetings? Wondering what the response was like from our Perth based collegues.

cabinfever

28th Jul 2004, 08:34

QT

I have been reading your posts with interest...I just wanted to add a few things.
Its entirely your choice to go to LHR and work under those different conditions...Let us who believe that this is a threat to our working conditions fight for it.
You may believe that this base is inevitable but I like many others will not sit back and allow the fat cats in higher management to greedily eat up the profits, through their bonuses while we lose our conditions...The conditions that people like yourself probably fought for many years ago.

I'd be happy to go to the LHR base...if it was under the current posting provisions of the EBA...But no!!!:* ...I have to accept another contract from my employer and take leave without pay...It sort of leaves a bad taste in your mouth doesn't it?...They can still save their $18M in accommodation costs!!!

Its time for us to stand up and be counted!!!...

Q-Tee

28th Jul 2004, 11:17

Geez guys ..... I seem to be hated, much like my friend on a LHR flight last week who said she was going to the LHR base .... was called a SCAB by her colleagues onboard .... nice work guys.

If you cant accept Aussies going on contract to LHR, then you will HAVE to accept those 400 positions going to UK locals ...

This base is a reality, it will happen, nothing can stop it .... you also forget the 3,000 shorthaul FAAA members who can fly to any destination on the Longhaul network on the A330 .... they now have the hour limitations and it can go most places the 747 can .... and they cannot refuse to do so if we are on strike ---> that would be a secondary boycott, and that's illegal.

DO I agree with the LHR base ?? Not on principle... but I will not pass up the opportunity, as there is nothing that can stop it...

Yes I know people will lose money, but it is going to happen .... the crew are so focussed on this LHR base, they are forgetting what else the company are planning on doing during the next EBA .... and I believe thats the management plan...

You guys can bag me all you want .... you are just pointing out the fact that you cant cope with change .... I must admit the accelerated change of late is a shock, but I am doing the best I can to adapt ...

If the FAAA decides to call a strike over this .... they will lose, that is plainly obvious .... there are too many differently employed crew.

the ground staff who were promised a job, have just got them .... they have been seconded to flying for an eleven month period, my best friend is training them all ...

And the current longhaul permanents are so worried about their jobs, most will not strike .... it will just bring on the enivitable 'individual contracts' that have been threatened for years ....

My poij\nt of view is my own, and as with everone else on here I have the right to air it ...... bag me for it, but I have been in this company for too long to see this is already a lost fight ...

happy argument guys ....

Left2primary

28th Jul 2004, 13:16

qtee...........luv,

your arguments about why the London base is going to go ahead are getting more and more desperate with each post.

The short haul award limits them to 3 hour time differences and endorsement on another aircraft type [744] pose's issues with CASA.

One union refusing to allow its members to scab on another IS NOT a secondary boycott.

Longhaul are united as they have NEVER been before and will fight this ALL the way and you know it.

Where are QF going to get 1000?, 2000?,3000?, 4000? cabin crew at short notice ???????????

The FAAA will be carrying out protected industrial action so QF will be powerless to do anything about it either before or after the fact.
Do us all a favour by reading Argus's last post.

Quote
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you cant accept Aussies going on contract to LHR, then you will HAVE to accept those 400 positions going to UK locals ...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Riiiiiiight.........So its now the FAAA that are responsible for shifting jobs offshore???????

Your desperation is REALLY beginning to show.

L2P

leemo

28th Jul 2004, 13:18

Q-Tee,

Quote - And the current longhaul permanents are so worried about their jobs, most will not strike .... it will just bring on the enivitable 'individual contracts' that have been threatened for years ....

What a load of BS. We can go on strike during the protected indutrial dispute period ...we will still have our jobs on the same terms and conditions and at least have put up a fight.

Quote - If the FAAA decides to call a strike over this .... they will lose, that is plainly obvious.

Not obvious at all. The board cares about $$$ and when we strike the company will lose big $. It wouldn't be long before the board begins to question whether lifting the overseas crew cap is worth it.

I for one will not stand around and let the company screw me. You may be apathetic Q-Tee but many crew are not. We will fight this long and hard.

leemo

29th Jul 2004, 02:38

By the way. I have spoken with Mark Latham ALP and they are concerned that Qantas are moving Australian jobs off shore.

His email address is

[email protected]

I urge any crew member to contact him if they are unhappy with this outrageous slap in the face for hard working Qantas crew.

vdd

29th Jul 2004, 10:42

Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
OVERSEAS BASES UPDATE

MEMBERSHIP ENDORSES FAAA RECOMMENDATION TO FIGHT FOR OUR JOB SECURITY AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Last week the series of nationwide membership meetings concluded. A very large turnout of members (923) endorsed the following resolution, with only 2 members voting against.

“QANTAS LONG HAUL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS CONDEMN THE PROPOSAL BY QANTAS TO EXPAND THE USE OF OVERSEAS-BASED FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND TO ESTABLISH A LONDON BASE. FURTHER, WE EMPOWER THE SECRETARY – INTERNATIONAL DIVISION TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO FIGHT THESE PROPOSALS THAT THREATEN OUR JOBS AND OUR LIVELIHOOD”.

WHY THE QANTAS PLAN IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE FAAA
- Qantas wants to have the unrestricted ability to hire unlimited numbers of overseas cabin crew who will not be employed under our EBA. (Currently Qantas is limited to no more than 370 overseas based crew – the CAP)

- If Qantas is allowed to achieve its objective of no restriction (no cap) on overseas based crew numbers it will mean the inevitable destruction of your terms and conditions of employment.

- There is no guarantee in the event of forced redundancies that overseas based crew will be made redundant before Australian based crew. The threat to our crew, particularly our junior crew is unacceptable. Qantas will naturally want to keep cheaper overseas based crew if forced redundancy became necessary.

- We believe that there will be a real danger of other European destinations (Frankfurt) being withdrawn from Australian based crew if Qantas has the ability to have unlimited overseas based crew.

- This will mean a global salary reduction for Australian based crew as allowances, overtime, long range and ODTA associated with London patterns become no longer available to our crew.

- This means we will go from a wage freeze in 2002 to a global wage cut in 2005 if Qantas proceeds with its stated intentions.

- The FAAA believes that once long European patterns disappear i.e. LHR, these will be replaced with shorter patterns and a loss of income for crew.

- Commuters will be disadvantaged further, by increased costs associated with having to do shorter trips because London trips will no longer available

WHY LONG HAUL CREW SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE “OFFER” TO WORK IN LHR
- Qantas says it “guarantees” a right of return to a cabin crew position in Australia. The few of you contemplating the “offer” should ensure you see a highly skilled lawyer to ensure that in fact an enforceable right of return exists.

- The hours worked in the LHR base will be 220 hours on “average” and up to 240 hours for the same money that you would receive in Australia i.e. 20-31% hourly pay cut.

- There are potentially substantial superannuation implications of taking up the “offer” and going to LHR on the basis of leave without pay from your current position and not contributing superannuation to your existing QF scheme.

- Any current Australian based crew member taking up the “offer”
for the LHR base will not be covered by the FAAA and all the protections and benefits that FAAA membership entails.

- Our EBA does not allow for seniority to be recognised upon return to Australia, for any period of employment, that an existing Australian based Long Haul cabin crew member, may take up with Qantas Cabin Crew (UK) Ltd.

- Acceptance of this “offer” by our crew, will in the FAAA’s opinion result in pressure by Qantas on current Australian based crew to accept similar inferior conditions

- 1 week less annual leave.

To illustrate the point of rapidly changing circumstances that confront Qantas and the resulting changed positions that Qantas adopts, the following 2 questions were published on the cabin crew website on 6 July 2004:

Question: “Are we pulling out of Paris…?
Answer: “There are no plans to leave or increase capacity to Paris”.

Question: “Will there be a Long Haul Base in BNE?”
Answer: “ There is no plan for this as it isn’t viable at this time”.

To those of you contemplating the LHR “offer” make sure you consider all the issues that the FAAA has raised and make sure that you don’t become victims of changed circumstances.

Finally, the FAAA does not wish confrontation with Qantas over the issue of the CAP and the issue of protection for our crew from forced redundancy. However, so that there is no ambiguity, the FAAA will not accept a situation of unlimited overseas based crew and a direct threat to the job security of our members.

We will update you as events develop.

Q-Tee

29th Jul 2004, 15:45

Peeps, if the FAAA can manage to stop this base from happening - Kudos to them ..... thats fine with me, I will stay doing what I am doing now .... flying around at my leisure ;)

However, methinks I will be in LHR come Feb 2005, in fact I will wager anyone on it :)

And Secret Squirrel?? There is nothing secret about me .... I am up there saying I want to go to LHR, online and off .... I have nothing to hide .....

For me, this is a great opportunity .... and I will be taking it, and no I will not follow any work bans directed by the FAAA on this issue - nor will anyone else wishing to take this base. And if there is major industrial action ..... well the individual contracts will start being offered .... again what management wants ....

And as for secondary boycotts, it is illegal for anyone to secondary boycott in support of another group on a different Enterprise Bargaining Agreement ....

My arguments are in no way desperate, it would seem however those opposing the base are getting more and more desperate to prove 'solidarity'.... the roving meetings involving 900 longhaul members over a space of weeks - great !! What happened to the other 2,200 ? Possibly not interested?

Either way, it really matters not .....

O h and I would be wary about letting management know what you think in the Employment Engagement Survey .... they have openly stated that it is to "guage how committed crew are to the future success of Qantas" .... now if they have several thousand survey results saying that crew aren't committed to QF's success, then they would be in a very interesting industrial-legal position ....

cabinfever

29th Jul 2004, 17:37

QT

It's so funny reading your posts....It's as if you wish the FAAA to fail in their bid to protect our conditions....And please enough of this "its reality the base is going ahead"....Reality is what everyone perceives it to be and yours is unfortunately a distorted one.
Its a shame...You stated in previous posts that you yourself took industrial action in the past for a variety of reasons...Well, GIVE US THE CHANCE TO DO THE SAME THING NOW!!!!...To protect our hard fought conditions....Its now our turn.
And please stop with the ill informed statements about individual contracts...Scare tactics will get you nowhere...Read the rules about protected industrial action.
I respect your right to air your views but I cant help feeling there is a sense of bitterness in your posts...You seem to be so anti-crew....
You've made your choice to got to LHR...Great!!!
Now let us who wish to stay behind do so.

overhere

30th Jul 2004, 01:23

For me, this is a great opportunity .... and I will be taking it, and no I will not follow any work bans directed by the FAAA on this issue - nor will anyone else wishing to take this base. And if there is major industrial action ..... well the individual contracts will start being offered .... again what management wants ....

Oh dear, one has to ask how "united" Long Haul really is....

O h and I would be wary about letting management know what you think in the Employment Engagement Survey .... they have openly stated that it is to "guage how committed crew are to the future success of Qantas" .... now if they have several thousand survey results saying that crew aren't committed to QF's success, then they would be in a very interesting industrial-legal position ....

This comment is concerning from someone looking in from the sidelines. Whats the use having a employee survey if employees can't be honest? Surely crew would be more committed to QF's success, if they were in secure jobs, with a committment from the company that their positions would remain secure and with similiar flying and conditions in the future.

If nothing else, this thread has shown how divided Long Haul really is. When you have crew calling other crew "scabs" on-board, one would have to say that professionalism and common sense has already been thrown out the window. How disappointing that LH haven't been able to produce a united front, but rather have groups of FA's just chasing whats best for them, how much will you be able to achieve "together" in this state?

Left2primary

30th Jul 2004, 08:48

Overhere,

thanks for that.

If you read back through the pages of this thread you will see that there is one QF contributor posting in favour of QF's planned attacks on our working conditions.

She is motivated by pure self interest because she wants to live in LHR for 2 years or so.

Perhaps calling work collegues "scabs" is distasteful to you but ask yourself how you would feel if a group in your place of employment were in support of cutting YOUR pay 15% just because it suited them.The London base is the tool they will try and use to affect this.

Yes, you are on the outside looking in but don't think one tragic, vocal, self interested individual represents the whole FA sentiment.

As I have mentioned before. QF Longhaul have NEVER been so united in their opposition to these attacks and WILL vent their fury at the end of the year.

The issues relating to surveys are more complex than they seem, once again, from the outside.

Lesley Grant used them as a tool at Air NZ to open their London base and abolish their preferential bidding system.
I understand they have spent much of the last 7 or 8 years clawing back the conditions she stripped from them.
Surveys are one of her tools and Longhaul will ignore them because of this. Not because they have lack any comittment to QF's success.

There is not an ounce of FA trust in our management such have been the lies, half truths and deceptions of late. Ignoring the surveys are a vote of no confidence.

Lesley Grant has no concerns beyond maximizing the bottom line of the Cabin Services department because her performance bonuses depend on it.

Does she have any concerns for the longterm health of QF..............?
I DONT think so...........She'll take ALL she can get and be gone in 2 or 3 years, max.

QF Longhaul will be still here and we will be the ones trying to cope with the consequenses.

L2P

BTW I would take ALL that qtee says with a grain of salt. Most, if not all of it is complete and utter BS born of desperate self interest.
It has been suggested here before that qt is a representative of QF management. It's looking that way to me with every post.

capt.cynical

30th Jul 2004, 09:17

"CRIKEY" hits the nail on the head

Qantas - an inside view

Pemberton Strong
Crikey's aviation expert

Crikey has reported extensively on Qantas in recent months. Here's a well-informed insider view on the way an Australian business icon operates.

30 July 2004

Business Index
Blinkered analysts on James Hardie
Qantas - an inside view
Crikey at the Macquarie AGM
A sleeper surfaces from Reserve Bank
Profiling CBA CEO David Murray
McGauchie's James Hardie baggage
'Dame' Margaret jumps Fairfax board
NAB: icon in distress
Foreign winners and losers in Australia
The foreign business lists
Top 50 Aussies in overseas business
Telstra is not our biggest company
As of Sunday, August 1, there will be only 19 days to the release of the Qantas result for 2003-04 and there's every sign that it will among the best the airline has reported.

But don't expect much in the way of boasting. There will more in the same vein as the letter CEO Geoff Dixon wrote to The Australian Financial Review last week (More special interest pleading from Qantas). Of course he's right, but as exporters and importers have found for years there's no such thing as a "level playing field". Its a mirage, a figment of some businessman's dream or an economists momentary flash of desperation. Even the most committed and competitive of businessman knows there's a host of things and happenings out there that will tilt the playing field against you. It's how you react and adapt that separates the moaners from those who succeed.

But regardless of the cries for special help, Qantas continues to flesh out the empire, this week announcing new services from Melbourne to Los Angeles to counter new services added by Air New Zealand, which is flying via Auckland.

And it will go some way to also countering the push by Singapore (and maybe Cathay) to fly Australia-US, which is a sleeping issue at the moment. Qantas, like all successful businesses doesn't like to have too robust a level of competition and Singapore could certainly provide that on the trans-Pacific routes, currently one of Qantas's most profitable.

And Qantas wants to succeed while having a good, old fashioned Aussie whine about the unfairness of all those "furriners".

So what have they really to complain about? Well there's the service to the city of "lurve".

No, I don't mean Las Vegas, I mean Paris, France. Recently I remarked on the Qantas decision to abandon Paris to a code share with another airline (Cathay). Here's what a well informed Crikey reader wrote in reply: " Qantas pulled out of Paris because it lost $22 million last year and similar amounts the year before. Qantas would have liked to increase its services from three a week to seven (economies of scale would have brought it into profit). However the French government and Air France prevented this."

Hmmm interesting, and there was more.

"The introduction of the new business class product and the increase of services to London (more to come) and Los Angeles was a result of business travellers again travelling after SARS and the uncertainty of terrorism (which is been countered by increased security around the worlds at airports and by governments). It also is driven by relentless competition in the premium market by all airlines."

Advice to travellers. "Frequent flyer points are used extensively throughout the network but it is a complicated issue when and how to get it. In simple terms don't try to use them in business class (say Monday morning, Friday nights, etc.) and any other busy times the suits are travelling. Off-peak is the secret."

And other issues. "Pulling out of Rome and Paris is driven by short-term strategic thinking in my opinion. The average manager's corporate life has been reduced to five years and is heavily dependent on bonuses. It also is a fact that Qantas has no twin engine long range aircraft on international routes at the moment. Most major airlines operate twin engine aircraft to build up routes new or existing ones with lower yields". (Yet its cheap international carrier, Australian Airlines is flying old Boeing 767 twin engine planes on its services. Go figure!)

"Qantas does have four airbus A330-200 twin engine long range aircraft, but these are being used on domestic sectors.

"Only GOD, CEO Geoff Dixon, knows why."

"Recently the penny dropped and the boys, Geoff, and John Borghetti, the putative successor to Dixon? wanted to convert these Airbuses to international configuration with the lovely sky beds in it. However they were told the floors in the aircraft need to be strengthen at a cost of A$65 million. Ouch. So we keep flying our only long-range twin engine aircraft on domestic routes!

"Qantas relies heavily on feeder service from British Airways in London and American Airlines in Los Angeles. The majority of future growth is directed towards those ports. Given that Qantas has its major eggs in two baskets one can only hope there is no major hiccup there, otherwise the immediate impact would be severe."

On the move to establish an international cabin crew base in Brisbane, the insider had this to say.

"Qantas international cabin crew have bases in Sydney (around 85%), and the rest in Melbourne and Perth. There are around 25% of cabin crew who commute to Sydney, Melbourne or to a lesser degree to Perth. In your article you mention cabin crew leaving in on the Gold Coast and Brisbane having a little 'lurk'.

"You imply that they travel free domestically to work". (No it’s the businesses they keep on the side while not flying) "FACT: every cabin crew member or pilot (there are hundreds of pilots who also commute from anywhere in Australia) have to pay for their ticket to their home base. In addition your are on staff travel ticket where if there is no seat available and you can't travel. There's no such thing as booking and having a confirmed seat. Standby is the word, and it is not much fun after a 12- 18 hours night/day shift tour of duty from somewhere overseas or before you are going to work":

(Pemberton Strong: But it is a lower yield to Qantas for staff to be occupying a seat, even paying for it, than a travelling member of the public who pays more.) "And how far do allowances go in Sydney where the cost of accommodation is high. The allowances don't go very far.

"We live away from Sydney because of family and friends. And the tickets aren't so much cheaper these days either then the low cost carriers.

"A Gold Coast Qantas commuter I know recently booked several flights on a low cost domestic carrier as was cheaper then Qantas staff travel. So much for nice little "lurks."

"However operational requirements sometimes require cabin crew or pilots to operate from another port due to aircraft configuration changes or the start or beginning of a scheduled service. This is a common occurrence at all airlines. In Qantas it is less common with cabin crew as they can operate all different international aircraft types and also operate sometimes on domestic services. Pilots can only operate they aircraft type they are rated to fly (eg. 747-400 only) and have therefore a much higher positioning rates.

"It has a lot to do with crew scheduling. This in itself is worth a whole book in regard to incompetence. Wages are depending on your category. International Qantas has customer service managers (in charge of the flight), supervisors (in charge of economy), business first flight attendants (first and business class) and flight attendants. Rates are based on category."

And then there is the contentious issue of that international crew base in London, to be run with the assistance of labour hire group, Adecco, no doubt. "Qantas has currently overseas bases in Auckland and Bangkok. These 'little foreign slaves' earn half or less than Australian-based cabin crew."

"Conditions are third world for them as they have no rights whatsoever. "Its like "here is your roster, shut up, perform otherwise your contract will not be renewed in two to three years. "We also reserve the right to fire you anytime we think we don't like you, COURTESY OF ADECCO/ QANTAS. And these Adecco managers are gold frequent flyers on Qantas regular travellers in first and business class. Needless to say Geoff Dixon (GOD) and his mates are also chairman lounge members and get frequent flyer points for every trip they do in first class.

"And NO, does not cost them a cent. And then they use those points for family and friends to travel also free. No problem using the points for bookings there. Good isn't it?

"The proposed London base is again being forced upon Australian crew to cut costs and undermine the power of the Australian cabin crew union. I concur with your assessment about British wages. Qantas UK crew (offered to Qantas International and domestic crews initially), are Australian cabin crew (a small initial percentage has to be English) on the London base on a two year contract will (if it gets up, watch this space) be eventually replaced by English crew (pick a Leicester, Manchester or Irish accent). The lady behind this scheme is Lesley Grant, New Zealand born, with experience at Air New Zealand and Ansett!

"Finally, ALL bases have managers, assistant managers and support staff. Currently ALL senior managers pay is performance-based. Unless they can provide plans and results how to "screw" those below them financially they are out very quickly.

"Hence Geoff "(GOD)s sustainable "screwing program" of $A1.5 billion.

:mad: :uhoh:

Left2primary

30th Jul 2004, 09:21

Capt.Cynical,

you beat me to it.

QANTAS. THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE.

Bastards.

L2P

Wirraway

30th Jul 2004, 14:18

Sat "Sydney Morning Herald"

Qantas ignores union threats
By Scott Rochfort
July 31, 2004

In the face of vocal union opposition, Qantas will press ahead with plans to establish a 400-strong London crew base on Monday by opening job offers to its 4000 Australian flight attendants.

Despite the threats of industrial action by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, Qantas said it had received positive feedback from its crews to the move.

"We've had a good level of interest in terms of people contacting in and saying, 'How can I apply'," said Michael Sharp, Qantas's head of communications.

"But the period of [formal job applications] doesn't actually begin until next week so we can't make any comment on specifically how many people."

Qantas expects to save about $18 million a year from the move, given it will cut the cost of meal and hotel allowances and allow more flexibility with its crews.

In a bid to soften any potential opposition by British unions, Qantas confirmed it had already signed a memorandum of understanding with the 1.2 million-member union Amicus, which covers flight attendants.

Under the offer, Qantas flight attendants moving to London will get a £12,220 ($31,750) base salary, an estimated £4000 in "sector pay", £580 in allowances and a £7250 annualised lump sum, taking the total to £24,422 ($63,500) a year.

Crews will also get £600 in private medical insurance and an interest-free loan of £1500 to buy a annual London Tube pass.

The FAAA said the offer translated to a 20 to 31 per cent wage cut, given London crews would be be required to work longer hours - up to 240 hours for every eight-week roster, compared with about 180 hours for Australian crews.

The union said that out of the 932 members who attended meetings this month, only two supported Qantas management's plans for a London crew base.

The flight attendants' union opposes Qantas management breaking the current enterprise agreement, which puts a cap of 370 on the number of flight attendants that can be based overseas. It has also objected to the recent hiring of 150 crew on fixed contracts of eight to nine months.

The head of the FAAA's international division, Michael Mijatov, warned those 150 staff would be "put back on the streets" once the London base opened next June.

Qantas confirmed that it had hired "around 100" international flight attendants on fixed-term contracts.

But it countered union comments the crews would be out of a job once the London base was open. Mr Sharp said most of the staff would return to the casual pool of flight attendants from which they had originally come, or to their original jobs within the airline.

Mr Sharp reiterated that no Australian jobs would be lost from the move to London.

But it is understood the FAAA is more concerned about fixed-term staff being used as strikebreakers. The union has ruled out industrial action until its current enterprise bargaining agreement expires on December 18.

In the meantime, the union will lobby against the London base.

Mr Mijatov will fly to London next week to hold talks with Amicus, the International Transport Workers Federation and several other unions.

The International Transport Workers Federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, warned in May that the federation "will do everything that we can to support" the FAAA.

Qantas will meet the FAAA on August 13.

============================================

ozskipper

31st Jul 2004, 03:48

But it countered union comments the crews would be out of a job once the London base was open. Mr Sharp said most of the staff would return to the casual pool of flight attendants from which they had originally come, or to their original jobs within the airline.

That comment that most of the fixed term contractors returning to jobs within the airline or casual flying isn't entirely accurate.

Most of the fixed term contractors I know were working outside of the Qantas Group before the offer and will have to find alternative employment after the contract expires.

Left2primary

31st Jul 2004, 06:27

Ozspipper,

Correct.

more bullsh@t from Michael Sharp.
To be expected from QF's chief spin doctor.

I met three 11 month contract people recently.
Two were ex Ansett and one was from outside the industry.

Nicer and more deserving people you would never meet.
All three will be looking elsewhere for work in 11 months time if the FAAA are unsuccessfull.

QANTAS.THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE

L2P

Q-Tee

31st Jul 2004, 11:38

Yup, I must be management, because I dont 'run with the mob' .... god I wish I was management ..... I could get me some bonuses !!

Was told today, they have already reached over 400 applicants for the base .... after only 5 days of applications open ....that was from a very reliable source .... you WOULD have solidarity, if there werent so many people wanting to take the base .... QF has been very clever in this particular 'divide and conquor' campaign .... good luck :)

Left2primary

31st Jul 2004, 21:37

qtee,

funny how you have such access to "reliable sources".

L2P

BTW, how many C209s are required for UK customs and does the CPT. have to sign them?

cabinfever

1st Aug 2004, 11:18

QT

You come across as so miserable and bitter...Like I said before its as if u wish crew, who are choosing not to take the base, fail in some kind of way.
Sad...Actually.... EXTREMELY sad.
I'm surprised you didnt leave years ago..Redundancies have been offered many times now!!!!

The majority of cabin Crew are UNITED and ALOT of people dont want to take sub standard conditions in LHR....WE ARE ONE AND WE ARE MANY!!!

Have a lovely day....

standard

1st Aug 2004, 11:32

it may appear to be unfair, but business is business and when Qantas flight attendants are the highest payed in the world and the company can see ways to cost save they will.... business is business and what may be immoral will help push the share price up.... :ok:

Tarantella

1st Aug 2004, 12:58

I haven't been in here for a while, but after reading this 17 or so pages I thought I'd like to add a few thoughts...

I have been with Qantas L/H for a number of years and I have had the opportunity to vote on a number of EBAs. My motives are both personal and altruistic. I voted for better conditions for me, but not at the expense of future employees. If a wage rise for me meant that future F/As wound up on what was essentially a B scale, then I voted no. I think that it is our responsibility to try to negotiate EBAs that our sons and daughters can live on in the future.

The LHR base is a smoke screen to blind us to a critical point in our next EBA negotiation- the removal of the cap on numbers for overseas based crew - currently limited to 370.
If we can not negotiate some kind of limit on numbers of overseas based crew, not only is it unlikely that Australian-based people will ever be able to get fulltime positions as L/H crew with Qantas in the future. It is also unlikely that present fulltime Australian based Qantas L/H cabin crew will maintain their present working conditions, or perhaps even maintain full time employment.

There is already a provision for overseas basings in our existing EBA that will allow Qantas management to achieve the $18million in allowances and accommodation savings they keep referring to - but this didn't fit in with their plan - makes you wonder what their 'plan' is...

Assume no cap is negotiated, and unlimited numbers in overseas bases are ok now.

Qantas management has said that your job is protected for when you return to Australia at the end of your contract with Qantas Cabin Crew UK. Whose job is ever 100% guaranteed?

Picture this scenario: 400 Australian based crew go to LHR to work for on 2 year contract. After a few months of steady overseas recruitment and training, 1000+ local crew are trained. They are earning $18000 p.a. less than the Aussies. Why keep those expensive Aussie crew?

Qantas management decides to terminate the Leave Without Pay provisions after 6 months, as is their perogative according to the agreement: They can terminate the LWOP at any time due to 'operational requirements' (read the fine print).

All these extra overseas based crew (earning much less than their Australian based counterparts) based in LHR, Mumbai? Taiwan? are saving Qantas heaps of money. The Sydney/ Melbourne/ Perth base is no longer financially viable. Qantas management needs to make some crew redundant- there is no provision in the EBA that Qantas must make overseas based crew redundant first. Suddenly the job you were 'guaranteed' would be waiting for you when you got home -doesn't exist!

Worst case scenario? Maybe.
Possible under the terms of these agreements? Definitely.

FAAA & Sick leave.

Paid Sick leave is a right. To be used when you are ill.
I believe (please correct me if I am wrong), it is illegal in Australia to use Sick leave as a tool during Industrial action. It is definitely illegal for the FAAA to be seen to endorse such use and could lead to the FAAA being taken to court.

I think that certain people are over-estimating the number of crew that would work during any industrial action the membership may take, but that is my personal opinion based purely on conversations with MAM casuals and crew that have talked about their interest in the LHR base.

It saddens me that people think that this EBA is a fait accompli.
I love working for Qantas and my dearest wish is that other Australians will always have the opportunity for fulltime employment with Qantas. That is why it is critically important that - to use a bit of Qantas-speak - we ALL look at the Big Picture and fight to maintain our working conditions and through this the working conditions of those who come after us.

Whatever happens in the long run, I'll know that I can still hold my head up, because I tried to make a difference.

"I still call Australia Home"