Qantas New York Services

[GalleyHag]

After reading the following notice from the FAAA International division (www.faaa.net) how do long haul crew feel about this decision? Are crew happy to accept the dispensation and still retain the flying and are the savings by not slipping crew in New York going to be that substantial to warrant such action?

Just interested in long haul crew's thoughts on this issue.


23 March 2005

Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants ID07-05

NEW YORK SERVICE

The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service. The Company told the FAAA that it was prepared to utilise its NZ based crew from BP238 to operate the New York service.

The Company advised us that in order that Long Haul crew continue to operate the New York service, it would need slipping in New York to be discontinued and for the service to be done as a shuttle out of LAX. The Company is entitled to plan this sector up to 14 hours but since any shuttle would entail a duty of 14 hours 35 minutes, dispensation from the FAAA is required if Long Haul Australian crew are to be used.

THE FAAA HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION TO QANTAS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:

The dispensation will operate for 2 bid periods, BP 239 and BP 240.

Patterns can be planned up to 14 hours 35 minutes.

The slip in LAX following the shuttle cannot be below 36 hours.

That the Company maintains slips for BP 238 to allow those who wish to slip in New York to bid for these trips for 1 more bid period. This also allows for crew feedback to reach the FAAA.

Dispensation will be reviewed during the 2 bid periods. If cabin crew feedback indicates majority opposition to the dispensation, it will be revoked following the completion of BP 240. We will also be able to ascertain whether the shuttles will be desired trips and actually bid for, bearing in mind these patterns will be relatively high hour trips which are often keenly sought after.
WHY HAS THE FAAA AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION FOR THESE SHUTTLES?

The primary objective of the FAAA is to provide job security for our members. The transfer of our flying to overseas based crew (in this instance to NZ based crew) is not in the strategic interests of our membership or the long term viability of the Long Haul Division.

The use of NZ based crew to do the New York shuttle would result in the Company having to send at least 3 full crew complements of NZ based crew per week over to LAX to undertake the New York shuttles. CONSIDER THE AFFECT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE ABILITY TO BID FOR THE HIGHLY DESIRED LAX DIRECT PATTERNS.

There is a perception at the very highest levels within Qantas that the FAAA International Division and its membership are anti-Company and not interested in a co-operative approach where this is possible. This is entirely incorrect. We will vigorously defend our memberships' interests but we are not irrational to simply say NO, and thus jeopardise the job security in this Division.

This will be a dispensation for two bid periods. If it is that our membership rejects the continuation of the dispensation then the FAAA will withdraw the dispensation.
Finally, I wish to say that this decision has been a difficult decision to make, particularly at a time when there is a strained atmosphere between the FAAA and Qantas resulting from issues such as directed long service leave, attacks on the FAAA leadership by senior Qantas executives and the impasse with Australian Airlines over EBA negotiations.

The easy option for the FAAA would be to say NO in relation to the New York issue. However, my colleagues and I will not adopt the position of taking the easy way out and burying our heads in the sand and simply rejecting Company requests on the basis of knee jerk reactions.

Ultimately, crew will not thank the FAAA if more and more of their flying is taken away because the Company has concluded that it cannot deal with this Division and decides to send our traditional flying to others.

Whilst some members may not be happy with our decision, I urge all of you to consider the logic and the rationale for the decision and to use the trial period to discuss this issue with colleagues.

We will write to you again in the near future outlining the mechanism to be used to obtain members' feedback on this issue.

[jettlager]

Its a lose, lose situation.
Let the company give it to the Kiwis.

[qfcsm]

Huh! Did I miss something here?

Let me get this straight...
QF will continue the slip if the service is operated by NZ crew.
What, the whole crew? What about the CSM and CSS?
And how are they going to get that number of NZ crew to New York - hire a Concorde????

I'm not sure if I'm mad at the FAAA for the garbage communication or agreeing to the dispensation.

Is there any end to this erosion of everything?

Here's a forecast for you.
If QF get away with this very shortly 14:30 days will become the norm and slips will suffer OR the route will go to the cheap crew (NZ, BKK or AO)

[DEFCON4]

What are the tech crew hours limitations?...will they still slip in New York?This is more about reducing costs to compete with SingAir than any thing else.Otherwise why did it take so long for the brains trust in management to figure this out?
In winter with delays and long aircraft departure Qs on the runway expect TODs to more like 17 hrs(or more).
As was said earlier a lose lose situation.NYC was the last decent slip left on the network.Don' t expect the service to be too fantastic on the westbound sector(JFK/LAX)
Why oh Why didn't I take the last VR package?

[QFRegional]

qfcsm

I dont think QF intends to slip the NZ crew in New York, the notice states that the NZ crew would operate the "shuttle" and the way they will get the crew up to LAX is by taking more of your (Australian based crew) patterns to LAX therefore further reducing your flying.

You make a good point though what about the CSM or CSS - if for example the NZ crew operate this shuttle and there is no dispensation does that mean they will slip the Australian based CSM and CSS or will they just do the shuttle without either on-board manager?

[str]

Yay a LAX/JFK/LAX shuttle - another trip to go sick on. Not many trips worth doing anymore.

As for the Kiwi's doing the shuttle, let them do it. If the company puts them on SYD-LAX directs they still have to overnight the Kiwi crew in SYD for two nights and pay them allowances.

Why weren't crew asked about this before the decision was made?

[firepussy]

NZ Crew pattern will be something like:AKL/LAX(slip)LAX/JFK/LAX(slip)LAX/AKL...about a four day pattern.No slipping in Sydney,no allowances.With 2 days off in between they could do nine such patterns/BP.
Not very nice flying!!!
Whats to stop QF promoting NZ crew to the position of CSS or CSM?

[jetjockey7]

Qantas Managrment is on track to break the back of the FAAA.Little by little longhaul is being broken down.
There are 3 people who are responsible: TW. GB. JB.These three allowed the concept of Off shore bases to creep into EBA 5...thats where the rot set in.It just keeps on getting worse. Why aren't these 3 individuals made answerable for their stupidity?
BTW where is GB(CSM)?Try the fourth floor of QCC..a reward or protection?
The architect of all this Ian Oldmeadow..Dixon's chief henchman in his mission to break the union.Complicity and stupidity.

[capt.cynical]

Defcon4
I am soooo glad I did.
Good luck to you all.:(
They tried that one on the T/crew when the Chicago services started up and did not get away with it. Too hard for the poor pets.:*

[GalleyHag]

firepussy

Its not possible to promote NZ based crew to the position of CSM or CSS according to the following extract which is from a notice to all Long Haul crew on 9 November, 2004 relating to the EBA VII – IN PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT.

"Qantas has agreed that apart from the London base, Australian based crew will fill all promotions for CSS and CSM positions. This is the first time that Qantas has been restricted in this manner. An exchange of letters will occur between the FAAA and Qantas on this issue."

[firepussy]

Galleyhag
Thanks for a little good news

[Le 3rd Homme]

So Galleyhag
They move a few CSMs,CSSs(from LHR) to AKL. Problem solved.These guys with 870 overseas crew can pretty much do whatever they want unfettered.The horse has well and truly bolted.I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[batodd]

So is there any talk of hiring american crew to operate LAX-JFK?

[argusmoon]

Do yourself a favour...don't even go there!!!

[cyrillim]

Wow - and LA Kennedy turn. Is that legal under your contract or the CAAA for that matter?

In the U.S., crew are only allowed to do one leg of a transcon.

[jettlager]

At the moment no as we are limited to 13.55 planned tour of duty.

Our Union has granted dispensation by allowing 14.35 so the sector can be done.

Its a bad move and sets a precedent and will become the norm.

Interesting that US carriers who have/are losing money hand over fist can't operate their crew in this manner.

How much did we make last year????
Around a billion AUD wasn't it????

What a joke.

Jettlager

P.S. The Kiwi crew have no union representation and as such the company can and does do whatever it wants with them.
Qantas basically flies them till they drop.

[Don Esson]

From the FAAA circular:

" The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service."

Did the Company put any hard evidence before the FAAA to demonstrate the validity of its claim? If it did, did the FAAA test them? Does the union have the skills to test them?

That aside, the slipping arrangements for both pilots and cabin crew require review on a network wide basis that involves a bit of give and take from each side so that a win-win situation is the outcome. This is not rocket science but it will see a lot of the aggro between the airline and the unions evaporate.

[jettlager]

Don,

i'd be very interested to hear your suggestions re slipping formular arrangements and what changes you might suggest that would result in a win,win for all parties.

jettlager

[Don Esson]

Jettie,

I'd love to tell you but if I did I'd have to shoot you!!

However, anyone who is even slightly familiar with crew patterns would be able to explain where there is scope for efficiency. Even you must know where some of these 'inefficiencies' exist that could be solved by little thought outside the square. As I have previously said, it's not rocket science, but the real skill is brokering an agreement between the parties. The best way to do this is to deliver an outcome that's win-win for each side, and that also does not require a lot of brain power - just a will on both sides to move forward. It seems to me that neither the FAAA or Qantas are not in this frame of mind. 'Nuff said!

[capt.cynical]

Don,
So many words and glib phrases without actually saying anything, apart from the obvious.
Let me guess you have a MBA and are from Marketing,if not you should be.
:*

[jettlager]

Don,

Bull****, bull****...............and more bull****.

"'Nuff said!"

I think so.

Jettlager

[TightSlot]

Can anyone confirm approx sector times please, Wb & Eb - To help those understand who don't fly the route regularly.

Many thanks

[jettlager]

The sector looks like being achievable at 14.35 or thereabouts ONLY if everything goes to plan.

Delays ex LAX[the norm] and northern hemisphere winters JFK will, as mentioned before see this routinely blow out to 17 and more.

It stinks and is a MAJOR sell out especially given that we would be the ONLY carrier with cabin crew who do it.

U.S. cabin crew dont do it.
WTF should we?

Oh thats right.............it will further help to line the pockets of the scum who run this company.

Jettlager

[Don Esson]

Jettie and Capn Cyn,

Attitudes as those you display are precisely why Qantas and the FAAA are having such a difficult time with each other. You have hit the nail on the head by conceding 'it will further help to line the pockets of the **** who run this company.' It needn't: both sides should be able to share the benefits afforded by the implementation of pragmatic solutions.

[jettlager]

Don,

QF share.............?

You are living in la la land.

[captainrats]

Call time is usually 3 hrs before time of departure ie.0830 departure has an 0530 call time.Report time is usually 1hr 30 mins before departure.
Flight time from LAX to JFK is around 5hrs 30 mins dependant on traffic, flt level and prevailing winds and general weather conditions.Likewise JFK/LAX but with a flt time of around 6hrs.Factor in transit time in JFK and you are looking at 14hr 45mins to 15hr 30 min day if everything goes according to plan.During winter this could blow out to a 17hr plus TOD
Needless to say fatigue becomes a factor on the westbound leg with a crew who are already in a state of jetlag and sleep deprivation.Service on this leg would be very ordinary due to these circumstances.Does the American CAAA allow crews ,foreign or otherwise to do these sorts of hours?

[TightSlot]

Thanks rats - took a while, but got the answer eventually.

[RollzRoyce]

Just a quick question....

Didn't Qantas use to operate the shuttle between LAX and JFK years ago without the layover??? I heard this was the case but it never worked out (weather problems in NY, delays, fatigued crew, crew calling in sick etc.) ....hence the reason why the layover in NY was necessary.

I honestly don't think it will work this time either!

Rollz :ok:

[blueloo]

If you feel sick when you get their, get off. When a few of you do it at once, and their are no crew to fill in, the plane will be parked for a little bit whilst a replacement is shipped in.

Might end up getting slips back soon thereafter.

[Animalclub]

blueloo isn't what you infer tantamount to commercial sabotage or suicide? Whats the term - "Screw the company" perhaps?

Rollzroyce I don't remember any shuttles, but QF used to operate from SFO through NYC to LHR with slips at SFO and NYC - mind you that was with the B707.

[cyrillim]

Here is the link to the FAR, not sure whether they apply to foreign crew.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/570B853390E8E92E8625694A00702D74?OpenDocument&Highlight=flight%20attendants

Legally, I think a transcon turn is allowed but the unions simply do not allow it - at least for the top 3 legacy carriers.

I think after coming from either AKL or SYD, it would still be tough to do a transcon turn.

How long is the layover usually in LAX?

[Flugbegleiter]

Hi All,

This is my first post so I'd like to say g'day! It's been some very interesting reading on this site.

Blueloo - I agree. It would only take a few crew to go sick occassionally, and QF would have all sorts of problems. It could legitimately happen. I've been in situations where we have lost 3 crew members between SYD-MEL-SIN.

AnimalClub - Yes, I guess if it is intentional, then that would be commercial sabbotage and this just proves how dangerous the situation has become, with such a low morale in Cabin Crew. It's a shame - I used to be proud to work for QF.

[jettlager]

The following is a cut and past from the Longhaul FAAA.

4 April 2005

Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants

New York and Beyond……..

By now you will have all either read or heard of the Company's proposal and the FAAA's response in relation to the New York patterns. It's very important that as flight attendants we all understand both the motivation for this decision and also the FAAA response._

There should be no doubt at all that Qantas is indeed very profitable, and we understand that members are angry that despite this profitability another slip destination is taken away. We should also be in no doubt that Qantas will continue to look for further opportunities to save more money in the Cabin Crew area. Our role as your elected representatives is to take decisions in consultation with you where possible to ensure job security is paramount. Conditions as such become irrelevant if you are no longer employed.

Firstly, the two bid period dispensation gives all flight attendants not just your FAAA representatives the opportunity to be part of the decision making process during that period. The time given by the Company for us to make a permanent decision was insufficient for us to canvass member's views properly.

If momentary popularity with the membership was the motivating factor behind FAAA decisions, then it would be easy to have pre-written responses saying NO to everything that Qantas wanted from Long Haul Crew._

Unfortunately, it is less about popularity and more about painstaking evaluation of the possible long and short term consequences of any decisions that we make. On face value, many flight attendants are concerned about what is perceived as "breaking" our EBA hours limitations by the dispensation given by the FAAA on the New York Shuttle Option.

A more detailed examination reveals a very complex situation requiring very careful consideration of the whole nature of our cost structure, and what we perceive to be the potential for the gradual erosion of the Long Haul Division, by the removal of our work to other flight attendants and subsidiary airlines within the Qantas group.

I guess we all would have liked to believe that the 3 Year EBA signed in December last year would have provided the stability that we had hoped for. Unfortunately, there are other elements at work in our lives. Jetstar, Jetstar Asia, Australian Airlines, Short Haul Qantas, and overseas based crew all provide a lower cost structure and these people compete with Long Haul within the Qantas group for work._

Our focus from now on will be engaging our membership and developing responses and strategies to ensure that we are not left on the proverbial shelf, while other flight attendants who are cheaper and more flexible take our work.

If it is, that we want to remain fixed to a mindset, conditions and hours that were set in the 1970's and fight to retain those against a backdrop of change around us, then we will have to consider as a group where that will place us relative to those, not only in other overseas airlines, but those within the Qantas group. It is a decision that we must all make together.

It is probable that Qantas will purchase a newer generation of aircraft in the ensuing months and years that will have the potential to fly in excess of 20 hours, potentially even longer. Qantas' competitors will purchase those too, and their crew will reach agreement to fly them against the Qantas Group.

If the view of our membership is that 14 hours, 17 hours planned will be our benchmark forever, then Qantas will honour its EBA commitments to us while we still have jobs, but will use alternate workers with more flexible conditions and lower labour costs to do what we view as our work.

What then does this mean for Long Haul Flight attendants?? It is all doom and gloom for us??

Our view is that Long Haul Flight attendants are intelligent enough to see the reality of the situation and make pragmatic decisions. This does not mean that the FAAA leadership or its members should just make ad hoc decisions that will gradually render the EBA irrelevant.

Over the next 2-3 months we will be calling meetings of members. We will be giving you the opportunity to have face to face discussions with us and each other about our future in Long Haul. It will give us the opportunity to discuss with you the important issues that the FAAA leadership has discussed internally and provide you with our thoughts and ideas for securing the future of the Long Haul Division.

Where does New York fit in with all this?

The New York scenario is just an illustration of all of the above. It is perfectly legal for the company to put overseas based crew on those patterns but with potentially very serious long term implications for Australian based Long Haul Crew.

Our dispensation is not so much about a "trial", but more about a bit of breathing space so that "all" long haul crew can participate in any decision about the future of the shuttle to New York beyond the period of the dispensation.

The easiest thing for us to do and initially the most popular thing would have been to say no to the dispensation. That would of course facilitate more flying going to the overseas bases. What many crew do not realize however is that in order to facilitate the shuttle with Auckland based crew would have meant that a significant number of slots on all Los Angeles patterns would be taken away from Australian Based crew. Further, if New York goes to a daily service then it's possible that Australian based crew would find it very hard to get an LA pattern.

When "all" of the consequences have been aired and discussed then crew can make their views known on an informed basis and can advise the FAAA leadership accordingly.

Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division

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

I for one cant believe the disingenuous bull**** in this FAAA newsletter.

They claim that the advances in technology are the reason that we must lift the planned flight duty limitations that have been the norm for decades but COMPLETELY ignore the fact that in this instance we are talking MULTI SECTOR.

Sure, aircraft now fly further and for longer than ever before with the next generation being able to fly point to point anyway in the world.

Whilst I dread the thought of these types of sectors the on board amenities that will come with these new aircraft types will [and do for the leading longhaul carriers] include humidifiers, QUALITY bunks/rest areas and large chunks of "time off" on board, in which to rest.

Emirates [not traditionally known for its progressive, "crew friendly" approach] as an example, operate Dubai to Aust. East coast with flight times around 15-16 hours.
My understanding is that the A340s operating these sectors have underfloor bunks complete with entertainment systems and rules that ENSURE that the service is structured so that all crew recieve 4 hours off, in one hit, in a bunk.

LAX-JFK-LAX will routinely blow out to 15-17 hours+ especially in winter but as a multi sector operation the most the CC can hope for in the way of rest would be 1.5 hours across and perhaps a little more coming back given that a bar and meal will be scheduled for both.

This inhumane tour of duty has not been attempted by ANY of the major US carriers despite the BILLIONS in losses they have endured and yet the FILTH running QANTAS [THE WORLDS MOST PROFITABLE AIRLINE] expect to operate us halfway across the world, slip us for 1 local night and then do it!!!!!!
And the FAAA are in support of it..........????????

Long range aircraft are NO excuse for any of us to start accepting inhumane MULTI SECTOR tours of duty.
Sure, technology has come a long way since the 1970s but the human bodies need for rest has NOT evolved in the same fashion.

SINGLE SECTOR LONG RANGE TOURS OF DUTY THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE ONBOARD TIME OFF AND REST.................? SURE, THEY ARE INEVITABLE.

MULTI SECTOR INHUMANE SECTORS LIKE THIS...........?[That US majors won' t do]

YOU CAN STICK THEM WHERE THE SUN DOESNT SHINE AND/OR GIVE THEM TO THE KIWIS.

Jettlager

P.S. I urge ALL longhaul CC to voice their disgust to both your "handlers" and the FAAA.

[missleadfoot]

To the QF crew,

I work with AO and we are in the midst of fighting for our rights. I would just like to convey me feelings of support to you aswell. I have read all the posts regarding the LAX-JFK-LAX shuttles and sympathise with you also. What is proposed is not a healthy or safe operation to be part of an airlines regular schedule. Sure it cuts costs somewhere but really what are the long term costs. It is inevidble that there will be sick leave and certainly a detriment to the on board service. I came from an airline where we operated these duty hours (SYD-DPS-SYD, MEL-DPS-MEL, about the same as LAX-JFK-LAX) time and time again and saw crew going sick all the time. It was just not profitable for the airline to continue it and passed it back to domestic crew who were more than happy as they recieved benefits for operating these sectors. I don't want this to happen to you. Qantas is a company and they are looking to cut costs everywhere. The introduction of AO and JQ are part of this. As crew we are not part of this "take over everyone elses flying" business. If we had the choice where do you think we would rather be?. Fight for your rights and protect them. I think a lot of people have forgotten that we are actually employed by the same company and I for one fight for the rights of all of us, regardless of which department we "actually" fly for. It's about time we as cabin crew united together and approached the company and asked where we stand in the future of the company as crew. We have to unite because no cabin crew in this company is superior to any other now. We are all employees and we have to look after our collective interests.

[jettlager]

Missleadfoot,

thanks for the words of support. Timely advise indeed that geoff dixon and his goons are the common enemy. Not each other.

The Qantas Group- Bringing to the 21st. century the terms and conditions for its Cabin Crew of 19th. century British coal mines.

Jettlager

P.S. How many people would be comfortable being flown by pilots operating LAX-JFK-LAX under the same arrangements we are expected to endure............?

[Mr Seatback 2]

Hey - are the pilots rostered to do the same flying (LAX-JFK-LAX), or do they get off in JFK? Has this been confirmed?

[jettlager]

No they don't and won't.
They will continue to slip JFK

[batodd]

Can someone please explain to me what that FAAA letter meant? I seriously can NOT follow that thing! Can anyone offer a three sentence summary?

[Mr Seatback 2]

I know it's been said before, but one must ask oneself some SERIOUS questions, if the Tech Crew can slip and the Cabin Crew can't!

Every airline has different procedures in this regard to Tech Crew vs Cabin Crew operating hours & rest...but surely, if 'savings' are the determining factor here, then SURELY they could save themselves EVEN MORE money by requiring the Tech Crew to do the same.

Or would that just be too simple or political a function to perform?

Last time I looked, the Cabin Crew formed part of the TOTAL crew of an aircraft...what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this respect, I say!

[Mr Seatback 2]

batodd...

I believe the FAAA notice says the following (short but sweet):

1) By NOT providing the dispensation, the flying would have gone to overseas base crews

2) This would not normally be a problem. However, this eats into more Australian-based flying by Australian crew AND the direct LAX flying trips that are preferred by Australian crew would be reduced further.

By handing the flying to overseas based crew, the 'choices' to Australian crew are diminished further.

3) Change is coming. Whilst it may be tinkered with, it cannot be controlled.

QF has divided and conquered the airline to the extent that each division is awarded flying based on the lowest costs available. This means each division is in competition with the other for what might normally be considered 'their' flying (ie. Short Haul doing international flying of up to 14 hours in the Asian time zone area, etc), all for the purposes of continuing employment, etc.

Meetings will be held to discuss how current conditions may be preserved, in light of the many attempts to erode them by QF mgmt.

** That's as I understand it **

[batodd]

Thanks for the summary. So does that mean thats its MORE likely they will create an LAX base with American crew or LESS likely?

[jettlager]

batodd,

ah.......that question will depend on how desperately greedy those running, "The Spirit Of Australia" are.
I'm sure they would love to but on the balance of reports coming from QFUK they might be just a little gun shy.
Maybe they'll save it for next years bonus target.

Jettlager

[lineupandwait]

I know it's been said before, but one must ask oneself some SERIOUS questions, if the Tech Crew can slip and the Cabin Crew can't!

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Rock Dress]

As stated in a previous post, the CAAA does not allow any of the major U.S carriers to attempt this tour of duty, so why is Qantas pushing ahead for this? The CAAA are obviously not allowing JFK return flights from LAX for a reason.

[jettlager]

Because the safety/welfare of both the crew and their passengers are considered important by the US regulatory body.

Qantas on the other hand............. ?

Do the words "lip service" mean anthing to you?

Jettlager

[flugenluft]

It is clear many FAAA hardliners don't see what the union is telling them. It is precisely their individual lack of can-do that is contributing to QF giving increasing amounts of work to other cabin crew groups who will gladly do it. The FAAA has clearly put that exact point to it's members yesterday and the majority of members have a realistic understanding of this.

Thankfully, the union extremists are in the minority, as their humiliating defeat at the last EBA demonstrated.

[jettlager]

support PPRuNe
posted 6th April 2005 07:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the safety/welfare of both the crew and their passengers are considered important by the US regulatory body.

Qantas on the other hand............. ?

Do the words "lip service" mean anthing to you?

Jettlager

[Argus]

jettlager
The Qantas Group- Bringing to the 21st. century the terms and conditions for its Cabin Crew of 19th. century British coal mines.

I must take issue with you here. My grandfather toiled in various coal mines in Scotland in the first half of the 20th Century. As a very small child, I remember him sitting in front of the fire, hunch backed, coughing his lungs into the flames. He told me that he and his mates worked 12 hour shifts, six days per week with no work transport or pit head ablutions. They hewed coal by pick lying prone in water logged seams some 2½ feet high. They had a 'darg' to meet each shift to earn just a pittance. No darg, no pay. He and my grand mother plus two children lived in a two roomed miners' cottages owned by the colliery with no hot water, gas, stove, bathroom or inside toilet. Quitting the job meant leaving the house - not really an option in those days. During the 30s, lay offs were common so my grand father and father sold their labour to local smallholders for milk and eggs. And this occurred while the mine owner, an English aristocrat, 'wintered' in Monte Carlo from October to March.

In later life, my grand father suffered a major back injury in a roof fall. Compensation - no way, at least not until I lodged a claim under a recent British Government initiative, some fifty years after the event!

Even QF doesn’t replicate such employment conditions.

I find your comparison odious and insulting.

[jettlager]

argus,

welcome back.

Thanks for the touching little story.

You are correct of course.

The 12 hour shifts endured by your forebears are nothing compared to the 16 and 17 hours multi sector tours of duty QF cabin crew will be subjected to.

Do you think our cabin crew should be operated half way around the world [14.30 hour TOD], slipped for 1 local night and THEN made to operate a MULTI SECTOR tour of duty that even the locals wont do?

"Even QF doesn’t replicate such employment conditions."

Quite a telling quote when you think about it.

Jettlager

P.S. moderator.

I take umbrage with the reference made at the end of argus's post.
Please ask him to desist.

[Argus]

jettlager

The comparison you attempt to draw between your present working environment (QF I assume as your profile isn’t expansive on this point) and what I described in 20th Century Scots coal mines is, with great respect, arrant nonsense and nothing short of the ridiculous. Apart from the obvious physical differences and lack of basic amenities that even QF provides, you, unlike my forbearers, have the freedom to seek alternative employment should you find your present situation too much to bear. And you do seem to be totally dissatisfied with your current lot.

In deference to your wishes, I have deleted the last sentence of my previous post.

[batodd]

Just thought I'de point out that while its not too common, some US crews do trans-con turnarounds - Jetblue for one (JFK-LGB/OAK-JFK)...a friend of mine also said his wife at delta does them as well once in a while - JFK-SLC/SEA/California - JFK in the same day

[argusmoon]

Argus
You are just a little emotional.Obviously you are very fond of your grandfather(he is a lucky man to have you as a grandson).Jettlager's post was metaphorical.It was a comparison meant to highlight a situation not denegrate your grandfather.

[flugenluft]

A friend flying for CO a couple of years back was doing LAX-EWR-LAX roundtrip daytrips. Further, the duty didn't commence until pushback or 60mins after STD, whichever came first. JL clearly has got carried away by their extremism without checking the facts.

Anyway, JL's extreme view is in the majority. The union radicals were made to eat humble pie at the EBA negotiations and so they will on this one too. What an embarrassment they must be to their colleagues.

Enjoying the new EBA L2P?

[jettlager]

flugenluft,

so what you are saying is that no US major MAKES their crew do this sector????

"JL's extreme view is in the majority."

How correct you are.

If you consider my objection to inhumane working conditions "extreme" then so be it.

What exactly is your relationship to QF and why should we be subjected to a sector that NO US MAJOR makes their crew do despite the BILLIONS in losses their airlines have endured?

THE QANTAS GROUP -"Metaphorically" bringing the conditions of 19th Century British coal mines and subjecting them to it's 21st century Cabin Crew.

[flugenluft]

JL, you are just playing on words now because it has been demonstrated once again that you do not do your research before you blurt on Pprune.

Your issue earlier was that it was a safety/welfare issue. Now that it has been demonstrated that there are many crew in the US doing this pairing and you don't know what you are talking about, your argument has lost credibility (you lost credibility with me a long time ago when you were Left2Primary and got banned from Pprune for life).

Everybody sees you for what you are. As for me being a QF mouthpiece, you are just reverting to your same old tactic of name calling because once again you lack an intelligent and viable counter argument.

How's the new foreign base going L2P?

[surfside6]

Flugenluft,
What you appear to have forgotten is that American crews are in their own timezone...They are not jetlagged.
QF crews on the other hand are both jetlagged and fatigued after completing a 14 hour sector from Sydney and going through a massive 19 hour time change.
Weather in American winters can close JFK for hours.Aircraft sit at alternate airports for extended periods waiting for a break in the weather.Turnaround times at JFK are notoriously slow, often taking in excess of 2.5 hours.Factor these circumstances in and you are looking at tours of duty in excess of 18 hours plus.
Perhaps YOU should do some research before you decide to enter the fray.

[Don Esson]

Surfside 6 reckons there is a 'massive 19 hour time change' between Sydney and LA. That may be correct on the clock and calendar but in reality, there are only seven times zones difference. That is, when it's 1500 local in Sydney, it's 2200 local in LA. In body terms, the difference is just 7 hours.

Just another example of statistics, statistics and lies. I am not saying that Surfside is lying, rather he/she is just exagerating to illustrate his/her point. The claim does not wash.

[Butterfield8]

One day back 7 hours ahead ,ONLY seven time zones?This still equates to a lotta jetlag particularly when combined with a fourteen hour tour of duty with very little rest/sleep onboard.Couple this with an 07.30 call the next day( to go to JFK) and you have a lot of sleep deprivation.19 hours /five hours whatever combination you would like to use it still knocks you around.
Perhaps Mr.Esson you would like to see the crew operate Syd/Lax transit Lax/Jfk transit Jfk/Lax.A mere 29 hour tour of duty.
Would this be satisfactory for you?
The floggings will continue until morale improves.Thank you Mr.Esson... chief flogger .
What about the other points that SS6 raised?
Talk about being selective to prove a point

[cyrillim]

Given that there are U.S crew that fly transcon turns, just not common, here are other points to consider:

(1) Many of those that allow these turns are flying for low cost carrier. LCC have shorter and tigher turnaround time between flights. They also fly narrow body aircraft which allows for quick unload/reload. Given that in QF's situation the crew will stay on the same aircraft, it certainly takes a lot longer to deplane, unload bags, load new bags and board a 747 than a 737 or an A320 that many of the LCC fly. This adds to their duty time.

(2) Catering adds more time. Because they only serve snacks and beverages, catering on LCC can be boarded from the originating station but be sufficient for the whole transcon turn. On legacy carriers and probably QF, the inflight service will probably comprise close to a full international meal service judging by the flight time. Not to mention its harder work for these crew since they are not simply handing out snacks, in my opinion.

(3) Remember that airlines "knowingly" violate union work rules all the time. Just because somebody said they have done a transcon turn does not mean they were suppose to be assigned such a trip. Often, such trips are assigned last minute while on reserve. They could be barely legal only by minutes but have not choice but to fly. Or they could go illegal while in the air at which time there is nothing you can do and the company simply shrugs its shoulders. This is particularly a favorite for airlines if they know you have a days off following that trip.

I am not necessarily in support or against the proposed change, but rather feel that it needs to be a win win situation. If they want a transcon turn after an international trip, than pad both ends with longer layover. If not, cut the layover to bare minimum but break up the trip into two segments. They could potentially run into problems where the transcon crew go illegal on route, have their layover extended back at LAX (or not??) which means they can't work the scheduled flight home to Oz. Then QF will probably have to deadhead an entire crew to LAX to work the flight home or cancel the flight. Not sure how this will play out.

Just my two cents.

[Jet_Black_Monaro]

It seems, from my obs, nothing ever stands still at QF. Things are constantly in upheaval.

Must be a difficult environment to work in.

[Flugbegleiter]

One of the prime reasons the FAAA claims they are allowing this dispensation, is to protect Australian-based crew slots on LA sectors. Yet, looking at the patterns for next roster (BP238), a lot of LA flying has been allocated to AKL-based crew anyway, and ALL of the Y/C slots on AKL-LAX-AKL.

Personally, I would rather let them send the AKL-based crews to LAX and give NO DISPENSATION for the LAX-JFK-LAX sectors. As a Y/C flight attendant, that would suck for me, but at least we would be protecting our conditions and showing these dickheads (Qantas) that until they are prepared to work WITH us and not treat us like the enemy, we are not willing to help them in any way.

So this, on top of 6 weeks of forced long service leave (so far), moving to a dodgy area in LA, loss of routes/destinations, no pay rises despite record profits (sorry, 3%pa=inflation, not pay rise), etc etc.

I will not do anything for this company any more, other than my *basic* job. Don't expect any smiles from a happy frontline employee.

Seriously pissed off.