$22 fuel levy at Qantas for Staff Travel per sector

[Mustangbaz]

Why is there no comment on this?

Outraged..............

We only fill empty seats, SQ tried this and the staff cracked it, why can't we unite for once and do the same.

[Pimp Daddy]

We only fill empty seats
And increase the fuel burn because we do.

[blueloo]

At what ~ US $68/tonne cost approx...... I think $22Aust surcharge per Sector is a bit rich.


As I have just recently read, - where is the Executive Bonus surcharge!

[pullock]

Just another attack on staff conditions at big brother. Glad I left.

[bonvol]

It's managements way of engaging you and convincing you to vote NO.

[404 Titan]

You think you’re outraged at what you have to pay for fuel surcharges. CX staff are being sc****d just as much.

USD45.30/ HKD353.00/ CAD54.00/ NZD64.00 or equivalent for CX flight coupons between HKG and Southwest Pacific, North America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, South Asian sub-continent, and between Bangkok and Dubai.

USD11.70/ HKD91.00/ NZD17.00 or equivalent for CX flight coupons not mentioned above.

And don’t get me started on all the bl**dy taxes we get hit with as well. No one can tell me staff travel isn’t a major profit centre for CX and all major airlines the world over.
:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :mad:

[chockchucker]

Wasn't all that long ago that one could purchase a return staff ticket from Melbourne to Sydney and get change out of twenty dollars!Now that same twenty dollars doesn't cover the fuel levy, never mind all the airport charges and taxes (nothing like privatisation to make trave cheaper eh?)

But then, that was when airlines valued and looked after their staff a little more than they seem to do today. Ansett was particularly good in this area(and I understand that TAA/Australian airlines were equally as good before being swallowed up by Qantas). How much things have changed in such a short period of time.

[badboiblu]

Maybe it's time we did something like the general public did with the fuel companies a month or so ago. Boycott the company for a day. All go sick just for one day, say December 5th. Give the management an unexpected long weekend. Its only a small sacrifice for each person but would send a loud message to the company. More so than voting down an EBA or a stop work meeting. Get the maintenance, check-in, baggage handler, call centres, pilots, flight att and everybody else involved. Sometimes the greatest victorys come from the smallest beginings.

GD will never stop until he is made to show cause why this or that happened.

[rammel]

I was going to start this topic, but did not want to be labelled as ungrateful from those outside the industry for our cheap fares.

Now I may be a cynic but is this just one more subtle way to p!ss staff off and maybe hasten the departure of some people who may have been thinking of leaving the place already.

GD says this is because fuel costs will increase by $400-600 million. Now I am being extremely generous here, but even if this levy on staff travel raised $1 million it would still be a drop in the ocean and would not be noticed on the balance sheet. Which proves to me they just want to p!ss off staff.

Staff travel must already make a decent profit for them as we are just filling empty seats. So for example on a flight to LAX with 10 staff there is an extra $2500 they would have if the staff were upgradeable. This is money they would not have otherwise so I can not see how this costs them.

If times at QF are that tough that we need a fuel surcharge on staff tickets, perhaps we should just close up the business as obivously there is no money in it and QF will soon be broke. As I said earlier perhaps I am just a cynic.

[HANOI]

International Staff Fuel levy is $35.00 per coupon.
Want to go to LHR ?.
Four coupons ( BNE - SIN - LHR - SIN - BNE ) = $140.00.
Going with the Memsahib doubles it.
Thats another $280.00 just for fuel levy alone.

[beachwave40]

Jetstar you gota pay $19 per sector aswell and $35 on the trans tasman run

[faheel]

Mustangbaz dunno where you got your info abt sq staff "cracking it " but you are dead wrong there.

On my last staff ticket fare was $240 and taxes were $296 !

Buy yourself an excursion fare and then you have as many rights as Joe public .;)

[Dr Reedalldabooks]

Could there be a bigger f:mad:k you from management?

As someone else said, lets look at the figures. I mean, what is one paying for when they purchase a staff travel ticket? An economy fare one way from Melbourne to Sydney is $30 excluding taxes. So what is in the 30 bucks for Qantas? Surely that covers any processing costs of the ticket, extra baggage processing if you are carrying it and any other little costs such as helping pay a little to keep the Staff Travel people employed and the website running etc. Perhaps at the very most all of those costs would equal $15 and I reckon I am being very generous. Now lets see what you get for that other $15: No confirmed seat, ie it doesn't cost them a cent for them to uplift you (apart from the extra fuel which I will talk about in a minute), you might get a crappy meal and a drink if you are lucky (or unlucky :p ) all of which would come to the total of $5 at the most, and lets no forget the fact that you would only have what was left over from all the fare paying pax so you may get a ticket with no catering so we can even ignore this cost for some sectors. Apart from that you do not get anything else. Qantas makes a healthy $10-15 dollars on a seat they would otherwise have made $0 - not one cent!

So to my point. If there is already $10-15 dollars in spare in the price of a staff travel MEL-SYD ticket, then surely that is enough to cover the extra thimble of fuel you are likely to cost the company on such a sector. I mean a short sector like that, I can't remember the figures, but I think it was something quite small like less than an extra 100kg or fuel to carry an extra 1000kg of fuel to destination, so going by that rational, a staff passenger weighting about 100kg (70kg person + 30kg of bags or something like that) would cost about 10kg of fuel, and I think that is being generous. And wow, hang on a minute, that 10kg is about $10 and already covered in the cost of the ticket!

I cannot see how they can justify an extra $22 PER SECTOR on top of the already inflated price of a staff ticket. Not to mention its $22 whether you are going CBR-SYD or BNE-PER :rolleyes:

I also just want to add that I do think we are lucky to have staff travel but I think it is a perk or the airline industry and a part of the reward for working such strange hours in all different time zones etc. and there are not too many other jobs where you will not be home for Christmas, New Years, Easter, children’s and partner’s birthdays etc. etc. the list goes on. I think its not an unfair perk to have, the same way as is being advertised on the TV the employees of Holden get discounts on cars etc etc. But management is trying to further disengage us by taking away these rights (or not taking away but making them so unattractive that they are not worth using).

Anyway, lets do the same figures again on a SYD-LAX sector. An economy ticket without tax is still a whopping $135 (this is what they charge you for a seat that would otherwise have gone empty). So what do we have again? say $15-20 for the ticket and baggage processing, keeping staff travel running etc. That leaves $115. Now again a little more food perhaps (forgetting about business class, its $270 a ticket for some unknown bloody reason, I doubt that you get an extra $135 worth of food and drink, its just another example of greediness and disrespect from Qf management - but that’s another issue (the extra $135 that is:E )). So back to my point, you might eat $15 worth of their food. Now remaining money in the ticket is $100. So Qantas has now made $100 dollars from this seat which they would otherwise have made them 0, nothing, a duck. And lets look at the 'incredible' amount of fuel that would have had to have been uploaded from using this extra seat. Say roughly it is about 500kgs of fuel needed to carry another ton of fuel to destination and we had an average weight of a staff pax being about 100kg, then it would mean they would cost an extra 50-60kgs of fuel. Again I think this is being extremely generous. So what to we have? Even with this extra 50kgs of fuel, Qf still stand to make at least $40 dollars from a seat that otherwise would have made 0. I would have thought a good deal for all concerned? Qf make a little on the side from a seat that otherwise would have given them nothing and the staff member feels good about being able to use on of the few 'perks' of the job during their time off and thus perhaps feel a little more 'engaged'. But NO but that not enough for the people running this joke that is becoming Qf. They want to stick an farcical extra $35 per sector. It is disgusting. :mad: :mad: :mad:

As many people have talked about, domestically now it is almost a cheap to get a return fare with virgin and have a confirmed seat. Now I must admit a year ago I would have paid the extra and got a seat with Qantas and never have contemplated flying with Virgin, however moves like this from greedy Qf management which have no plausible explanation (or at least none have been put forward to us) are starting to change my views because they are obviously trying to make it clear that they don't give a stuff about us, so why should we give a stuff about them? Its not the way I want to be or feel but the leadership from the top down in this company is nothing short of abysmal. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[J430]

I do not have the privelege of being QF or Ex QF, so I fly myself, or buy a ticket QF, DJ etc, and thats fine, but the staff rate is well below a standard average rate the consumer pays, and that is fine too. I do not think anybody working in a Jam factory getting free jam would think differently.

However if there are growing fuel costs you should expect a slight increase in your "donation" to costs, if the real fuel cost increase was say $6.57 well make the increase $7 or $8, but I have to agree $22 is a bit steep...... but maybe not. You need to have the real proven costs, and often that is a bigger surprise than you would otherwise believe, in any business.

Why don't you take some facts and figures to management and put your cards on the table and expect they do the same?

Now in defense of the QF staff, just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine was removed from a QF 737 BNE-SYD flight after it was "filled up" from an earlier cancelled flight (wonder why it was cancelled...mech fault or poor loading????). They were taking the last of a few spare seats anyway, and they were asked to get off. Excuse was being overweight. Now in my plane 3 too many bodies is overweight, but when they do not weigh everybody how can they judge 3 people who were grossing 200kg. Their luggage stayed on and went to Sydney. The 200kg would have made no difference.

next they had two more flights that night, but guess what no available seats........ So check into a motel at 10pm......no chance...drive 1.5 hours home and back at 5a.m. the next day to try to catch up with their luggage and make a connecting flight elsewhere.

Does not sound like the way you should treat one of your retired senior captains of 35 years of service flying longhaul all the time.

I think the staff travel should be improved like booked as a stand by and 24 hours prior if the flight is not full, you get confirmed, just like Joe Public.

Brings me to another point. All the QF frequent flyer points I have I can rarely use unless I book 12 months in advance. Have done that recently. they must have a huge liability on their books and if they allowed yo to trade points for a stand by seat more people would use them, and the flights would be utilised and the liability reduced. Happier customers etc. Sure if you want to have a confirmed seat you book one of the (few) assigned FF seats, but if yuo are prepared to wait and risk it, burn the equal points!

Now this seems like good common sense...... pick it to pieces now!

J:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Way, waaay back in the early eighties, when a young lad first joined Ansett...I was told that my wages were below the general standard at the time however, the wages were subsidised by the employee benefits, namely staff travel! Oh how, over the years, I wished I had that in writing! It was the one pearl of wisdom from Gerry Oliver that I can recall.

Perhaps, bearing in mind the general cost of the average airfare these days, you should negotiate away the staff benefits for a higher wage...if that can be done...think of how much you use it & see what'd be more worthwhile to you all.

Just a thought...http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/crazy.gif

[tinpis]

That was wrong Buster.
You were subsidising our rooms at the Hyatt on Collins.

[Ultralights]

During my time at QF, i was a regular user of Stravel, reg flying between SYD/BNE and SYD/CNS, never had an issue with getting a seat, occasionally from CNS to SYD there might be a wait till the last minute thing otherwise no dramas. average cost of a return seat was about $220. im pretty sure some of those seats were already paid for by no-shows.

now leaving QF, and still having access to Stravel, but sadly i have NEVER gotten a seat since leaving.

apart from that, there is the Please Hold for approx 8 hrs on the phone just to book the ticket, then being told EVERY time since leaving that there are no seats avalable..

why go through that drama for a $220 seat when i can get a Confirmed seat now with VB? for the same money or less.

is it just me or does the term "retired" on your stravel privileges mean "sorry we gave you staff travel as part of your redundancy so we will make sure every other seat is taken with active staff before we even think about you"

though the story might (hopefully) be different for International travel.

[sys 4]

syd to gold coast with jetstar(reg customer)$160-,syd to gold coast qf stafftravel$148-
Simple choice for travel in the future,USE VIRGIN BLUE.

[the shaman]

the fuel surcharge for staff abosolutely sux. Anyone who works for QF should be able to travel at a generous discount in return for their efforts as loyal employees. If for nothing else but to ensure employees understand and appreciate the finished product of their labour ie. a servicable aircraft, carrying the general public over vast distances. And in the context of not every QF employees is on big dollars , may have a large family etc. they still need to be encouraged to travel and enjoy the benefit of working for an airline.

anyway this is just another small erosion of staff benefits.. actually i think most ETOMS staff are more concerened about keeping their jobs at the moment and the new surcharge has not sunk in yet.

I tend to agree with a previous post, if I really need to be somewhere by a certain time I will look at VB on the net. GD your a hard man..!!

[Howard Hughes]

At what ~ US $68/tonne cost approx.....
Surely thats closer to $680US per tonne?
But I do agree that $22 is a bit steep.
:ok:

[Dr Reedalldabooks]

HH I think BL is referring to carrying a ton of fuel, i.e. 68US to carry a ton to destination, then refer to my post above. So that’s $6.80US per staff pax, or as someone else described it to me: 2 fifths of f:mad:k all!!

the shaman I agree 100% with you: the reasons you state are why we should be able to enjoy staff travel as employee's of the company.........at a reasonable expense.....

J340, don't want to pick your post to pieces, but $6.57, 7 or 8 dollars? I think as I believe I have demonstrated, this is already in the cost of the ticket which I believe is already overpriced. Qf makes a very handy little profit from Staff Travel. The simple matter of fact is the fuel order will not change with an extra couple of staff on, that fuel will be carried, a thimble extra might be burnt but surely that is already covered in the ticket cost!!!!

It is obvious that this increase in ticket cost is only meant as a money making exercise for Qf management and as someone else mentioned to further disengaged already very disengaged staff so some (ie the ones that they want to) will think even closer about leaving....:ugh:




:uhoh:





:ok: :ok: :ok: :uhoh:

[rescue 1]

I've been led to believe that QF covers cost, including FBT on QEB tickets only.

I'm not sure why everyone is getting upset. Even at the new price it is still considerably cheaper than a last minute ticket off the net sites, and for most upgradeable to business!

Things can't be that bad at the rat if that's all you've got to complain about.

[Simon Templar]

You need to read some of the other forums/posts.
There is a lot to complain about at the rat:
Wages
Conditions
Service
Resources
Manpower levels
Being treated as the "enemy" by management.
Fear and Tyrany reign supreme.
This surcharge is just more of the same.
Stafftravel generates around an $12m net profit for the rat.
Money for Jam.

[cunninglinguist]

We all know what lovely, warm generous people QF are.......for 11 years NJ staff flying qantas tailed a/c with qantas passengers and qantas would rather fly with empty seats than have an NJS staffer on board, even at ID75 :mad:
and don't say they are only contractors, plenty of people get cheap QF travel who are alot further removed from QF.

[Simon Templar]

I am just trying to pinpoint a time when everything at Qantas began to go south.
Any ideas?
I think it was around 1998.

[capt.cynical]

The arrival of the "Bow Tied" one along with his domestic experts!!
:\

[Simon Templar]

They brought with them their zero skill set for running an international airline.
All the professionals who knew what was what have gone.
This business about dimming lights for take off and landing is another piece of TAA stupidity.
QF was once a leader and innovator.
Now its just a third rate follower without a clue.
Sorry, it does have one clue:
How to treat its people with absolute contempt.

[Buster Hyman]

This business about dimming lights for take off and landing is another piece of TAA stupidity.
I thought it provided more power to the engines...:confused:


:E :ouch:

[speedbirdhouse]

"This business about dimming lights for take off and landing is another piece of TAA stupidity."

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

The risk assessment which WASN'T carried out for the A330 [and other a/c types] has left a significant portion of the cabin out of view beyond 4 rows from the CC who are legally required to monitor it............?

Thats what happens when you have a significant proportion of the airline run by a marketing department devoid of ANY operational understanding.

How lucky Qantas is that it effectively "owns" the regulator.

Until the chickens come home to roost.................

[capt.cynical]

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

[Capt Basil Brush]

Cunning,

I think the whole staff travel thing (or lack of it) with NJS is coming from NJS - not QF or other airlines.

Remember back when AN and other airlines offered ID travel to NJS employees when approached, but on the provision it went through the company staff travel dept? Well that was the end of it. NJS strongly told everyone to forget about it, as it would involve employing a few more staff travel officers, and they were not about to do that for the good of staff morale!

Tight arses!

[OZcabincrew]

cunninglinguist,

MAM casuals who fly on QF mainline aircraft and have done for 3 or 4 years can't get any form of staff travel and they sometimes do more than often the same hours as full timers, where's the incentive? because full time definately isn't around the corner for them.

Does anyone know if we will have to pay this tax on Supernumery's? meaning our once free flight per month will end up costing $22 or whatever?

Oz

[Going Boeing]

Oz CC

The surcharge is applicable to Long Service "free" trips so that would indicate that it also applies to "Supernumery's" (which only applies to domestic cabin crew as it was a TN condition that QF inherited). Don't forget to add the 10% GST onto the fuel surcharge - a return domestic flight incurs a total surcharge of $48.40.

[capt.cynical]

Now lets see, a cosy little business lunch for "Geoff and Margaret"

Ah yes-a family of 4 return trip on any domestic route is $48.40 x 4 = $193.60- that should cover it !!!

Oh forgot the tip -better airfreight the dog as well !!
:*

[blueloo]

HH, sorry I wasnt clear on that, as Dr Reedalldabooks mentioned, that was the cost of carrying the tonne. (I guess a rather inaccurate firgure in hindsight for comparing the cost/benefit of the $22 surcharge, as the fuel/$/tonne to carry figure can vary quite dramatically per sector based on local fuel costs.)

Capt cynacal, lets not forget that Geoff, offloads full fare first class pax(already issued with boarding passes) for both his travel and daughters travel on ID90. You\'d better factor that cost into the price of an ID90 ticket for him.

[rammel]

90% of the time the fuel load is decided on before staff have been onloaded. Over the years I have not seen a crew increase their fuel because of onloading staff. So whether the staff are on or off the same fuel is carried. This applies for both dom and int travel.

[Don Esson]

dear rammel, more fuel will be burned if staff are carried.:confused:

[Butterfield8]

Burn Rate would increase by about 300mls per Staff Pax

[rammel]

Yes I understand that the staff member will have an effect on fuel burn however small it may be. But this would also be absorbed by the usual number of no shows which happen every day. The only flights I have seen which have very little if any no shows are the flights to NRT.

Overall the increase of fuel burn is unlikely to go over the burn that was already planned for.

[J430]

Back to dimming lights????

Why is this?? I can almostunderstand the sunshades up etc as it provides more light out for making it more visible, even though the strobes are seen long before the cabin lights or is this a myth too. but what is the point of dimming the lights. Some airlines do, some do not. Is it so that in the event of an emergency and less light is available your eyes are already adjusted???

Thanks

J:hmm:

[speedbirdhouse]

"Back to dimming lights????

Why is this?? "


It is a [nonsense] decision made by the marketing "gurus" now running cabin services.

They feel that making a decision [read, ANY decision] helps to justify their [pointless] existence.

[Buster Hyman]

I'm sure the reason for the visors being up is so that you can see if there's a fire...:uhoh:

[Simon Templar]

Correct.
The visors are up during the most critical phase of all flights:
Take off and landing.
This provides clear vision of whats happening outside:
Engine fires,flaps problems etc
For years QF have argued that the cabin lights must be on full bright for both phases.
In the blink of an eye that has all changed.
Why?
Some idiot in marketing doesn`t want to wake up the pax on descent.
Hell, if I was going to get my arse wet or burnt I would sure as hell like to be awake to exponentially increase my chances of survival.

[Boney]

Lights dimmed for take off and landing - agree with 100%. At least now people will have some night vision if $hit hits the fan.

Don't work for Qantas and haven't travelled with them for a while so can I assume this? The lights are on for decent while the cabin is cleared up and then off half way down the decent. Of course your eyes will only just be starting to get adjusted by the time you land but still better than on full blast as has been the case in the past.

[Simon Templar]

Even when landing in the dark?

[botero]

Just remind me again what the topic of this thread is?

[inthefluffystuff]

Have heard that the levy lets them cruise a bit quicker as the orders are plan a slower speed to conserve fuel but the levy lets em hurry it along if required, so seems if they slow and CHARGE the levy they (Quaint Arse) make a lot more!!!!

[triadic]

Lights dimmed for take off and landing - agree with 100%. At least now people will have some night vision if $hit hits the fan.


This is not a factor. Normal eyesight takes only seconds to adjust in such a situation - having the lights bright or dim does not change that.
:cool:

Dim/Bright lights could be another thread ...

And for the record, yes $22 is a bit over the top, expecially for short regional sectors.
:(

[rammel]

I think there should not be a levy. But seeing as there is the price per sector for domestic should reflect the fare level. eg:MEL or SYD to CBR, MEL to TAS on all these sectors the levy is more than the fare.

[404 Titan]

triadic
Normal eyesight takes only seconds to adjust in such a situation - having the lights bright or dim does not change that.
For the record full night vision takes 20 - 30 minutes to acquire not a the few seconds that you claim. Do a search on the internet or better still have a look at some Human Performance notes from any ATPL course. Cabin lights are dimmed for safety reasons. Nothing more nothing less. They're not dimmed so the punters can have a pretty view of the light from their window as some may think.

[inthefluffystuff]

Hell when has lights got anything to do with fuel levy come on get a new forum running on it and leave the fuel levy open for discussion!!!

[cunninglinguist]

Correct Titan, but don't worry about the net, when you turn your bedroom lights off at night see how long it takes to start distinguishing objects around the room, a bit more than a few seconds.
Dimming the lights during the day makes bugger all difference, just keeps it all standard.
Since the only lights you will see in an emergency at night are the emrg. lights, I don't see why dimming the lights for t/off is a bad thing ?

[surfside6]

Its taken successive QF Management 85years to figure this out.
Any way about the levy.
It sucks.
The fuel burn rate increase would be so small as to almost insignificant.
Certainly not the $35 per sector that they are charging.
But what else do you expect from a Company that charges staff for Water?

[MELKBQF]

Thanks Geoff and Margaret also for closing the staff travel office in MEL back in July. Approx 7000 QF group staff in this port now have to endure the 45 minutes on hold to SYD staff travel. What a joke!

[Le 3rd Homme]

If you want to go to Japan for example its cheaper if you buy a ticket on JAL...they don't charge a fuel levy.
Possibly a way around this outrageous charge:
Travel on another carrier.
The profit and turnover of staff travel would plummet.
Hit 'em where it hurts....profit