QANTAS CABIN CREW DISCUSSIONS ( IV) [Archive]

mostie

4th Jul 2006, 12:09

To be honest I am ashamed to work for Qantas.

This was not always the case but has become so for so many of us under the "leadership":rolleyes: of geoff dixon.

The pattern you refer to is correct and is indicative of what management think of it's staff.
They are treated as nothing more than a means of production, to be chewed up and spat out when burnt out.

The film clip to Pink Floyds, "The Wall" comes to mind.

I see this treatment dished out in so many ways to all CC regardless of where they are based.

Australian based crew are not subjected to this type of pattern yet as we still are protected by our industrial aggreement/EBA.

When it has expired I have NO doubt that under the "work no choices" legislation this type of pattern will become the norm for us too.

As Speedy said, QF must have shat themselves when this poor girl collapsed especially given that her operating CSM was an ex line manager who is unlikely to be silenced or pushed around.

The following is a cut and paste from the CC manager email sent to all Supervisors the afternoon of the incident.

--------

BKK / AKL CREW SLIP IN JNB We have been receiving a lot of feedback from
you with regards to the 24 hour slip our BKK and AKL crew were given in JNB
this bid period. Thanks to your continued direct and honest communication,
we can confirm that from BP246 the slip time has been significantly
extended. If you are speaking to BKK/AKL crew about JNB patterns please
feel free to let them know that extended slip times have already been
factored in to the new patterns and also to let them know that it is
important that all feedback re patterns be given to their base managers.

--------

The Thais don't voice their concern to management THEMSELVES as they are [rightly] terrified of not having their contract renewed.

This company is nothing short of discraceful.:mad: :mad: :mad:

cartexchange

4th Jul 2006, 12:27

mostie

4th Jul 2006, 12:34

I did and here is my "take" on these bull**** 17+ hour [no horizontal crew rest] sectors.

Go sick.

If Qantas CHOOSES to ignore the fact that I am a human being with physiological needs then I will CHOOSE to ignore the fact that Qantas is running a business.

Simple, easy and DAMM WELL FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

qcc2

4th Jul 2006, 19:05

these horrible patterns once again highlights the lack of support/action by the faaa. :ugh: regardless of base/contracts/ ALL QF international fa's work on an australian registered aircraft.:zzz: that means aussie civil aviation rules apply. :D simple why doesn't the faaa go to casa and make official complaints about certain trips. and under the oh act fatigue is a recognised work place hazard. where is the oh committee on these issues?

lowerlobe

4th Jul 2006, 22:20

The faaa in conjuction with the actu should be publicising these patterns in ads to let the public know what the company is up to.The only thing the company and darth in particular reacts to is public knowledge about it's perception of QF's idea of the "Spirit of Australia"....If the public found out about crew falling asleep or fainting after these sectors it would be embarrassing to say the least for Darth.

If we don't tackle this issue now ,what will it be like when the company makes full value of the new IR laws,imagine being fined $200 and losing a days pay if we go sick within 12 hours of a duty as is the case with the mining company in the news at the moment.

Then maybe, just maybe Casa might address this issue...

Machinegun Fellatio

5th Jul 2006, 01:02

1.AWAs
2.O.H and S:fatigue,atlas boxes,plastic tubs and Airbus Stowages
3.Carmen and her patterns
4.The FAAA:like most unions has been emasculated by legislation
5.New technology:negotiating Tand Cs for upcoming ultra long range aircraft.
6. Crew complement size
7.Next years federal election
8.The expiration of the Current EBA next year(after the election)
9.Qantas Enron style management and its lack of accountability.
10.Maintaining current wages and conditions
11.Jetstar International:one can only hope it fails
12.All of us pulling together in the one direction for the betterment of us all
If I have missed anything I am sure sure the pedantic putsch on PPrune will take me to task. :cool:

twiggs

5th Jul 2006, 02:46

yes terrible patterns, but even SYD and BNE based have been badly affected by the new Carmen system,
Have you seen the PER/SYD transit hours then SYD/DRW 24 hours slip then off to BOM.
What about BOM/SYD transit SYD/BNE 17.5 tour of duty with no horizontals rest.....how come no one has been screaming about these!

Please keep things in perspective CartExchange, the BOM-SYD is less than 14 hrs and then it is pax SYD-BNE making it up to 17:15, that's why no one is screaming about these. (probably what the Brissy crew used to do when they were commuting to SYD except now they are getting paid to commute home.)
Please don't even attempt to think you have it nearly as bad as the Thais or Kiwis.

speedbirdhouse

5th Jul 2006, 07:31

Give us an example of a 17+ hour tour of duty that the Thais or Kiwis do.

sinala1

5th Jul 2006, 07:35

No horizontal rest on a sector that is apparently over 12 hours long? :eek: Forgive my naievety, but when does a requirement for horizontal rest kick in? When I was flying Long Haul in the UK any sector over something like 12 hours, if my memory serves me correctly, required minimum 3 hours rest in a bunk...

twiggs

5th Jul 2006, 07:36

Give us an example of a 17+ hour tour of duty that the Thais or Kiwis do.

How about FRA-SIN, pax SIN-BKK

speedbirdhouse

5th Jul 2006, 07:38

twigs,
no where near 17+ hours if they did it. Which they don't.
They overnight before paxing home.

sinali,
13.55.

twiggs

5th Jul 2006, 08:13

twigs,
no where near 17+ hours if they did it. Which they don't.
They overnight before paxing home.

Well sorry but I flew with Thai who had that exact pattern on my FRA trip.
FRA-SIN 13:30 transit say 1:15 SIN-BKK 2:25 plus 30 min is over 17.

Anyway my point was that such a duty like BOM-SYD then pax BNE is a walk in the park compared to the whole deal that the offshore bases get.

I am well aware that some of our patterns don't take into consideration fatigue and are quite arduous, but I don't think that one is in that category.

Machinegun Fellatio

6th Jul 2006, 04:54

Borghetti`s take on the IFE system:"we stuffed up".
He has gone up a thousand points in my estimation for his honesty. :D

Shitsu_Tonka

6th Jul 2006, 07:43

There seems to be a lot of questions to the FAAA here about what action they are taking.

So what is the answer - are there any FAAA insiders here who can legitimately comment on what action is being taken? Do you still have a CCN or some such feedback from the FAAA on these issues?

Does the FAAA have the funds to engage a Professional PR company to get the message out to the ignorant public about their safety and the welfare of the QF staff? The reality is that everything these days is about spin - QF throw lots of money at advertsing and they know it is important. Whilst the FAAA could never match QF $4$ in a spinning competition, some dollars targeted in the right place to fightback will do a lot more for your cause than 'bitching in-house', which whilst sounding derogatory, is in fact the net effect unless you take the fight to your useless managers.

Left2assist

6th Jul 2006, 08:28

****su_Tonka,

you make some valid comments and thanks for your input.

At the end of the day I wonder whether anyone would care about how QF treats it's staff ???

Sinali,

I'll give you a little example of our crew rest arrangements and how management treat us.

As has been mentioned our award entitles us to horizontal crew rest for flight duties that extend beyond 13 hours and 55 minutes.

We still operate a 300 series 747 which doesn't have bunks above the rear economy toilets.

During the late 80's our engineering department developed an underfloor "containerised" crew rest facility which is in effect two cargo containers bolted together.

We access it from the doors 2 galley through a hatch in the floor and although some find it claustrophobic, I love it.

Anyway, when it is loaded ex SYD for our 13.55+ sectors it is a god send, but here is the rub.

If the return leg, due to favourable winds etc is planned UNDER 13.55 it is company practise to turn it around in the hold so we can't access it.

It's in the hold and costs NOTHING to use but the lowlife that run this company deny us it's use out of nothing more than spite.:mad: :mad: :mad:

lowerlobe

6th Jul 2006, 09:00

Quote
"It's in the hold and costs NOTHING to use but the lowlife that run this company deny us it's use out of nothing more than spite."

it is this attitude that personifies the company and it's relationship with us ....

The ACTU believes that an ad campaign is worth doing but not the faaa and we have crew who post here ( at least they tell us that they are crew)that believe we should give in to the company....If only the public really knew what the real meaning of the "Spirit of Australia" means

Shitsu_Tonka

6th Jul 2006, 12:15

Is that true about the under florr crew rest getting turned around? Are you positive it isn't offloaded for freight upload?

If you can prove it, it would make a great advert for the vindictiveness of the one they call Darth - but only if you can prove it. I wonder what the Senate Commitee who made their recommendations on the Burning the Midnght Oil case would make of intentionally reducing the Cabin Crew rest to be at their most alert for the most safety cricitcal pahase of their duty - i.e. the arrival at the end of their flight duty. What would CASA have to say about it - officially. It would be a brave and 'courageous' CASA official that would condone it. If you can prove it, get your FAAA to make it as public as they can, and inform your membership.

cartexchange

7th Jul 2006, 03:31

Its true about the container.
I have been on many flights where the container was in the hold and It was turned around as it was not our entitlement for horizontal rest.
It didn't matter we have our ways of getting back at the "honest" "duty of care" management.
I wont mention our solution but it was a beauty and we were better off

Capt Fathom

7th Jul 2006, 04:20

Its true about the container.
I have been on many flights where the container was in the hold and It was turned around as it was not our entitlement for horizontal rest.

How do you know the container is in the hold? Does it have 'ha ha ha' painted where the hatch opens!
Do you really believe the ground staff have enough time on their hands to offload the container, turn it around, and then return it to the same position just just for kicks???
I think you will find the container, which, from a weight point of view, is virtually empty, is put into another position in order to trim the aircraft to optimum.

rammel

7th Jul 2006, 05:38

In years gone by the container was meant to stay with the aircraft as there are only a small number of them. Now on the AKL-LAX-AKL run it is sometimes offloaded in LAX for freight uplift on the way back. You will probably find most of the stock is now in LAX.

If they are being fitted and being turned around to not give crew access, either the ramp in AKL or LAX may not know which way it is to be fitted. Someone should ask a question of management about this. If it is being turned around on purpose on orders from management, then get the union involved.

Shitsu_Tonka

7th Jul 2006, 06:26

I am a bit suspicious on this one - not doubting what cabin crew may have been 'told', possibly to stir the crew up, but I can not for the life of me seeing such a vindcitive act being perpetrated - especially when this would present an opportunity to publically show the arhitect of such a policy to be literally anti-saftey in an environment where fatigue is close to the top of safety concerns.

As I said, if you can get proof, exploit it against the morons who have come up with this policy.

lowerlobe

7th Jul 2006, 07:28

The main problem with the company is that each department cares very little for the others.

You only have to go back to the JFK snow bound aircraft to see this.

The cabin crew who worked from LAX were close to having a vote for extending their TOD.Knowing that the aircraft did not have the fuel required to taxi and then fly to LAX the tech crew and the local manager made the decision to push back.This was done with only one thing in mind and that was to prevent the cabin crew voting not to extend.

So much for CRM and fatigue considerations.......as far as the underfloor crew rest is concerned,it is certainly consistent with other actions by the company

Left2assist

7th Jul 2006, 08:07

****su_Tonka,

can't say what happens when it is used AKL-LAX as I have not operated this sector with the 300 but rammel is AKL based so he/she ought to know.

I do know for sure however that when it was used on the SYD-BOM sector it returned with the operating aircraft as it was needed outbound again.

It was always turned around so as to be inaccessable on the return leg which was "only" around 13 hours and outside our requirement for horizontal crew rest.

Flight attendant fatigue is a concept that has no bearing in qantas's present operation.
A cursory look at what we are being planned to do these days if proof enough of that.

How does PER-SYD red eye, transit SYD 3.40 operate SYD-DRW grab you???

Geoff Dixon aka "Dear Leader" is on record as confirming that as flight attendants we will have jobs in a few years time.
He suggested however that we won't like them.

Shitsu_Tonka

7th Jul 2006, 08:52

Crazy.

I do remember a (short lived) CNS-SYD-CHC-SYD day, which was the last day of a 7 day SIN pattern. Seems that things have only gone south since.

Have never understood what GD expects to be left at the conlusion of his 'reign'. Sounds simply like a war of attrition until he gets every cabin crew member on a short term casual contract - burn em out and turn em over. Well, I guess it is the philosophy of our national fuhrer after all.

surfside6

7th Jul 2006, 09:31

Upset your front line staff.
The staff that spend more time with your customers than anyone else.
The staff that recover product failures.
That apologize for management stuffups(IFE!)
The staff that have the experience and know how...get rid of them or make them unhappy.
Makes perfect sense......to a bunch of idiots :D
You need 2 things in any customer service business.
1.Happy motivated staff.
2.Provide them with the resources to do their job well.
King Rat and Il Duce just dont get it :{

Lurker@L5

7th Jul 2006, 15:06

Don't forget Jimmy Bow - Tie officially rejoined the Qantas Family this week.....
I wonder who he will BONE first?

Bazzamundi

7th Jul 2006, 23:45

Lowerlobe,

Seems like a pretty informed comment (accusation) you have there regarding the tech crew in New York. Did you happen to be sitting on the flight deck that day (obviously you must have in order to accuse people of what you just have)? On what fact do you base your claim?

lowerlobe

8th Jul 2006, 01:39

Bazzamundi...

There is no need to mention anyone by name regarding this example but just ask yourself a few questions…

It is fairly safe to say that the operating tech crew(Who slipped in JFK) would know that the cabin crew have operated from LAX to JFK and after the transit are also operating JFK/LAX.

The operating tech crew and local manager would also have been informed as to the approximate taxi time before take off given one runway was not being used because of an incident and the resultant backlog of aircraft trying to depart not to mention the problems associated with the weather.

If the aircraft had enough fuel for the taxi before take off and the flight to LAX then why did it not do it?

The tech crew and the local manager were also aware that given the scheduled flight time to LAX and the approximate taxing time the cabin crew’s TOD would have been over the 17 hour mark and that a vote to extend the TOD or not was about to be carried out.

With all this information the decision was made to push back from the terminal !!!

I’m not accusing anyone of anything but it’s reasonable to state that the aircraft was pushed back for a reason (or did the tech crew and company just want to taxi around jfk for hours and hours) and if the tech crew were not happy with that reason they would not have done it.

The intent of this example is not to start another tech/cabin crew fight but to say that each section of the company only seems to think of itself and not of the affect it's actions have on others.

Capt Fathom

8th Jul 2006, 03:09

There are certainly a lot of psychic people here.
Not only do they know what is in the cargo hold, and where and how it is positioned, they claim they also know what was said in discussions they were not privy to.
They also knew how much fuel was on board, but remarkably, were not too sure whether this was enough to get to their destination.
Lots of conspiracy theories here. The only thing missing would appear to be the FACTS!
PS. The aircraft will only push back once the doors are closed. The doors only close when the cabincrew are satisfied it is safe to do so and they are ready to go!

Bazzamundi

8th Jul 2006, 06:51

Lowerlobe, have you ever sat up the front during a departure from NY and are you aware of the procedures there for being in the line up for departure? Please enlighten those of us who have done it many times but obviously don't know as much as you about taxying an aircraft for departure in NY.

More importantly, were you on the crew concerned and what was the discussion amongst themselves? Or are you just speculating on what transpired through tenth hand rumours? If the aircraft pushed back and was subsequently delayed during taxy before getting airborne, did the crew make a position known to the tech crew that they were unhappy with the tour of duty and make a request to return to blocks? And just how much fuel did they have, and what was the planned taxy fuel, speed to be flown back to LA, and the clearance/instructions received by ATC prior to the above? Your accusations suggest you know the answers to all the above.

You have made an allegation that the tech crew conspired to have the aircraft doors closed an pushed back in order to make the cabin crews tour of duty illegal. By all means push for a fix to the NY situation that all of us sympathise with your lot about. But to start throwing accusations against people that are potentially unfounded is really kicking yourself an own goal.

Back up your allegation with fact. :ugh:

speedbirdhouse

8th Jul 2006, 07:12

The word out on the street is that NOT ONE visitor has met the expectations of QF "management".

No reduction in sick leave from cabin crew despite the bullying and harrassment, no reduction in lost time injuries and not enough one on one "meetings" with us.

Oh the pain........

There appears to be serious disharmony and disquiet developing amongst them with several individuals looking for work elsewhere and those staying vowing to work strictly 9-5.

Bazamundi,

the JFK incident whereby the cabin crew where prevented from exercising their award entitlement is not an isolated one.

The fact that we are not in a position to PROVE it doesnt mean it didn't happen.

flyboynath

9th Jul 2006, 05:53

It certainly isn't an isolated incident. I recall a time where we sat at the gate in AKL until 4am waiting to depart to LAX (NLH - need I say more). sio the crew took a vote and the decision was unanimous NOT to go.

That was fine until the captain insisted he could get us there in 9hrs 50 mins, well I don't know how possible this was, I do know we had a full load of Pax, but as for cargo - no idea.

Thing is, it took us nearly 11 hrs to get there, total duty time was just over 20hrs. Were we merely victims of circumstance or did we have the wool pulled over our eyes?

lowerlobe

9th Jul 2006, 08:23

Bazza,
Are you telling me that the tech crew would not have known how long the cabin crew had been working and how long their TOD would likely to be given the estimated delay?

Are you telling me the tech crew would not have been told of an estimated taxi time so that they can load sufficient fuel or do you guys just chuck a figure in the air and hope that will be enough?

If you have ever done a boarding(which I doubt) then you will know that the tech crew will be on the interphone every 2 minutes wanting to know when you can close the door.We might physically close the door but you guys tell us when.

The aircraft pushed back and taxied out for one reason only and both of us know what that was for or did the company and the tech crew just want to taxi the aircraft around JFK for a few hours for the fun of it.If the aircraft did not have sufficient fuel for the taxi and flight ,why did they push back or do you just hope that you have put on sufficient fuel and go for it?

That episode was a joke and if that was symptomatic of how each department cares for the other then we will never be able to protect our jobs from Darth and Basil Bow Tie.

Capt Fathom,
Do you think the company loads the underfloor crew rest on the way to say Mumbai and then leave it there because the return sector is under the required time.If that is the case there must be a heck of a lot of crew rests in various ports.

If the crew rest facility is loaded for the flight back why don't they enable it to be used?????

speedbirdhouse

9th Jul 2006, 22:15

The company so kindly block of part of B Zone.

Ground staff are the ones who block off the back part of B zone.
The aircraft is often weight restricted.

A CSM who allows the crew to use that zone for crew rest does so at the risk of being up on a clause 11.

The visitors LOVE that one as it is a free kick.

Bazzamundi

9th Jul 2006, 23:45

Lowerlobe will you kindly enlighten us all as to how you can avoid any taxy delays in NY. Do we close the door and push back, stop the airport and get priority in your perfect world? How else do you expect to depart NY - you have to be in the line to do so. You suggest that the aircraft is taxied around for fun all for the purpose of making the operation illegal and shafting the cabin crew. When all the pax are on board and cargo loaded we close the door and push back if it is departure time. The ground crew strive hard for this as the company focus is on delays at the moment, and their performance is measured on the amount of on time departures in many cases. For them departure is when the aircraft is loaded and doors are closed. If all is ready to go, why is it unreasonable to close the doors and push the aircraft back?

We get an idea of the delays, but these are never accurate. The last time I did the sector the plan gave us the fuel and the option of flying fast in order to get to LA in time to satisfy duty times as well as minimise the onwards delay to Sydney. This plan allows you to save a significant amount of time and costs the company lots of fuel. The sector times are planned on significant time on the ground. We know what the cabin crew duty limits are, and will also enforce them. If we make a decision to do otherwise, the operation becomes illegal and ulitmately it is our licence on the line.

You have an agenda and are happy to spread misinformation and drivel in order to do so. Making serious allegations against individuals without any fact to back them up is a dangerous game.

twiggs

10th Jul 2006, 01:41

Lowerlobe will you kindly enlighten us all as to how you can avoid any taxy delays in NY.

The only way to get priority is to have a pax on board who works at JFK ground movement control!
Apparently there was a QF108 that departed JFK and waiting to depart in a long line.
The Captain made a PA to the pax to explain that it was going to be a long wait.
A pax pressed his call bell and asked the F/A to tell the captain that if he mentions that he is on board on the radio, it may help the situation.
The Captain did so and was subsequently given directions which allowed them to bypass the queue of other aircraft departing and were next to take off!

Thanks Bazzamundi for an informed insight into what is actually going on in the cockpit and shedding light on the fact that it may not be one big conspiracy to make the Cabin Crew work longer.

Bazzamundi

10th Jul 2006, 05:11

I have great compassion for the situation the cabin crew are in re. NY, but this compassion wears very thin when you get the like of a few ill informed individuals willing to use personal agendas to tarnish the operation of others. These people cause more harm than good.

Perhaps Lowerlobe is suggesting that every time we push back, even if it is before the nominated time that crew get to conduct a vote to extend the tour of duty, we should conduct a vote anyhow, just in case some turn of events once underway cause people to have to extend hours over the EBA agreed. Just in case the taxy takes longer than planned, there may be storms/weather/traffic enroute causing a longer flight time, fuel may be low forcing the aircraft to fly slower, the destination weather may unforseenly turn to crap resulting in extra flight time for a diversion, something may go U/S on the taxy causing a return to the gate, the list could go on. You cannot depart a flight with any certainty saying that it will touch down at a precise time in pratical terms, particularly in the States.

As far as the hour requirements go, the crew depart the aircraft with the agreed sector time formula assuming normal operations, with the intention of satisfying firstly the legal requirements and secondly the EBA agreed requirements. If any of the above circumstances happen, we deal with them. You cannot for certain say that the taxy time is going to take X minutes anywhere, particularly NY. I have seen one day where a runway was closed, and as soon as another was opened the aircraft in the back of the line were directed over to the newly opened one thus getting away first.

If the crew feel tired to the extent they are unable to exercise their duties did they make it known? Personally if they said they were tired, even if they were not close to the limit, that would be the end of story in my book.

What are the facts Lowerlobe - ie. once again were you there and do you have all the facts upon which you base your opinions? You imply you are aware of all information regarding discussions between crew, ATC, the fuel state of the aircraft, the planned flight time, weather etc. etc. Or are you just the queen of galley gossip embellishing the facts for the purposes of your continued anger towards all other Qantas employees?

My final say on this matter. :mad:

indamiddle

10th Jul 2006, 07:04

twiggs

10th Jul 2006, 07:26

can anyone help me with an answer.
if i go sick on reserve line after i fly the minimum hours
e.g. about 150, is it true i don't get paid for sick leave.
if so do i fill out any documentation?
does this reduce my s/l?
am i required to get medical certificate if not paid?

As I understand it, after you have reached your minimum guarantee, you don't get any sick leave credits and no days are deducted from sick leave, but the company still require you to follow the normal sick leave procedure, ie normal documentation and certificate unless using one of your 4 days per year without a certificate.

This is the relevant clause from EBAIV

30.3. Approved paid leave
30.3.1. Reserve line holder
A reserve line holder accrues duty hour credits, except for personal
leave, at the rate of the minimum guaranteed hours divided by 56 for each
day of approved paid leave.
A reserve line holder accrues duty hour credits, for personal leave, at
the rate of the full-time minimum guaranteed hours divided by 38 for each
day of approved paid leave, irrespective of whether the flight attendant
is full-time or part-time.
This credit is given in the case of annual leave and long service leave
even if the flight attendant has accrued the minimum guaranteed hours.
The credit is not given in the case of personal leave and jury service,
nor is personal leave debited, once the flight attendant has accrued the
minimum guaranteed hours.

cartexchange

10th Jul 2006, 07:34

On the 747-300 B zone is usually blocked off for the crew on long sectors.

eg when it was being used on the LAX AKL LAX sectors B zone was always blocked off, this was in the CCN and it was also issued as a CSM briefing sheet so the CSM would not have been in trouble for allowing the crew to rest there.

indamiddle call the FAAA and ask them, this information is freely available to anyone that is a FAAA member, or if your game call the visitors!

speedbirdhouse

10th Jul 2006, 07:42

Cartexchange,

are you saying that QF have approved Bzone on the 300 for crew rest due to the aircraft not having the OHCCR other than sectors beyond 13.55 ?

qcc2

10th Jul 2006, 08:00

B zone is used as crew rest as per CCN on the Lax sectors if there is no UCCRF. but be aware connecting pax from lhr-lax-akl may have a B zone boarding pass. LHR and other stations are not aware of any internal restrictions.:*

cartexchange

10th Jul 2006, 08:00

no speedbird, but i will find the article in ccn and publish the details, bear with me

cartexchange

10th Jul 2006, 08:04

US route
15 x QF25/26 MEL/AKL/LAX services to be
operated by 2 class B743 instead of 2 class
B744
1 x QF149/8 SYD/LAX service to be operated
by 2 class B744 instead of 3 class Pacific
B744
Due to weight restrictions on the B743 when
operating between LAX and AKL, the
passenger load will be restricted allowing for
zone B to blocked for crew rest.
Suzanne Holden
Manager Cabin Crew Operations

CCN12 16TH MARCH 2006

speedbirdhouse

10th Jul 2006, 08:11

Thanks guys.

So NOT having the OHCR is the circumstance that allows the use of B zone.??

There are other sectors where ground staff leave B zone empty due to pax load on the 2 class 400.

Am I correct in my understanding that the use of this zone in this circumstance will have one shot?

lowerlobe

12th Jul 2006, 03:07

Over lunch I was reading one of the endless streams of communications from the company and saw that the manager group general finance or similiar was a Mr Gareth Evans.......Is this the same former politician Gareth Gareth who was at one stage trying to get on or into the UN as it's head honcho ?

cabinfever

12th Jul 2006, 05:25

Is it true?

Just heard while slipping in "Bad adventures" that GD has been admitted to hospital over some serious illness and has stepped down. And that Jimmy Bow Tie has taken over as "acting" CEO!!!

Any confirmation of this, as crew here are going crazy!!!

HANOI

12th Jul 2006, 05:33

The QF Gareth Evans and " Gareth Gareth " are different people.

crew-use-only

12th Jul 2006, 07:10

Cabin fever!
I doubt its true, and Jimmy Bow tie wont be any better, don't forget that the overseas bases commenced during his reign.

capt.cynical

15th Jul 2006, 03:22

Why so quiet in here ?
Has The Woomera taken a big stick to you all ?
:rolleyes:

Front Pit

15th Jul 2006, 06:07

It's quiet here because we've all taken the VR package!! :) A380 delay..... never thought I'd say God bless the French!! And now I no longer have concerns about the direction that ratbag QF management are leading us. :E Good luck to all those left behind to deal with those buffoons. Hope they finally fix the Inflight Failure Entertainment System so that our punters have something decent to watch on a long sector. Time now to relax & unwind with the family...... and a hot chocolate.......no marshmallow thanks :ok:

qcc2

15th Jul 2006, 06:31

who are lucky to take the package.:D you did enjoy the best times this airline had.:D dont forget you did contribute to the establishment of a true aussie icon. enjoy the good memories and dont forget to turn up for the annual reunion.:D :D :D

lowerlobe

15th Jul 2006, 07:44

Here is an idea to spice up the cabin crew thread.......

If we are looking at ideas to appeal to Darth as well as Basil Bow Tie how about this one...

We all want to secure our jobs whilst not doing slave labour rates and some here are telling us to give in to the dark side to achieve this as J* and others are cheaper (or so they tell us).

Instead of giving away the family house etc...why don't we do what some other sections do and have a "A" pay scale and a "B" pay scale...

So for those that are upset about seniority and not getting anywhere because QF is not hiring anymore L/H crew then if any new crew are hired they would be on a "B" pay scale similar to J* and others.This way if Darth is going to hire new crew and set up cheap alternative carriers and at the same time leaving QF to wither away he can do the same but it is called QF still...

S/H techies had 2 pay scales and I've heard other areas do as well.If this worked then they would be hiring again and junior crew would see some progression through the ranks....

Even if this just promotes discussion it's worth it because we have to do something instead of just sitting around waiting for the current EBA to end......I'll just put on the body armour with a crash helmet and wait.....

twiggs

15th Jul 2006, 08:48

why don't we do what some other sections do and have a "A" pay scale and a "B" pay scale...

Finally something I agree with you on LowerLobe, although this one is something our union was talking about more than a year ago as a possible solution to the diversion of flying away from us.
Maybe it's time you gave SR a call and see if this is still something they will be pushing for next EBA?

lowerlobe

16th Jul 2006, 02:35

twiggs

16th Jul 2006, 03:43

Very interesting Twiggs but I don't remember the faaa publishing a news letter with this idea.
I think it is a good idea for the union to check out but I'd like to know Twiggs how you were privy to this ...

There was never any newsletter, I heard it from someone who had been speaking to SR. It was apparently an idea that was being discussed.

lowerlobe

16th Jul 2006, 08:48

I have been thinking about the idea of a "B" pay scale for some time and think that it has some merit and therefore is something that the union should address as something that would have benefits for us and the company.

I have talked to some on the union before about some ideas and have been told yes we looked at some of those ideas and that was the last of it so ringing SR is something that I doubt would achieve anything.I also doubt that SR or anyone else would be available when I or anyone else rings .
This is why I mentioned it here for debate and for the faaa to see as we all know they do read pprune

DirectAnywhere

16th Jul 2006, 09:54

Are you guys serious?

In short you're saying f&*k all of my future cabin crew colleagues because I'm alright Jack!!

Unbelieveable! Why do you think we're in this position? It's beacause all the J* crews etc. said, "F%^k all those QANTAS cabin crew and their conditions! I want their job and I'm willing to accept such and such etc."

This willingness to hang each other out to dry is the only reason you're even discussing such a desperate attempt to preserve your pay and conditions. By accepting that people who do the same job as you should earn less money you're setting the precedent that will ENSURE you will be earning the same as them in time to come.

Why would management pay you 2x dollars when you've already shown you consider a reasonable cabin crew salary to be x dollars? Are your fellow cabin crew going to give a rats when you've already sold them out before they joined the company?

I cannot believe you people are willing to accept such a thing!!

Anyway, AWAs will make the whole debate academic in the next few years or so.

Rant over....:ugh:

twiggs

16th Jul 2006, 11:59

In short you're saying f&*k all of my future cabin crew colleagues because I'm alright Jack!!

Not quite DirectAnywhere.
Qantas is not willing to employ any more permanent fulltime cabin crew based in Australia because of the conditions that they have to be employed under.
If any Australian wants a job as Qantas Cabin crew you either have to be employed in London, Auckland on temporary contract or casual in Australia.
The concept of a B scale is to allow Qantas to start hiring permanent full time cabin crew based in Australia.
So while it may seem to some to be doing a disservice to future colleagues, from our perspective it is creating permanent full time positions that otherwise would not exist.

It also will help to alleviate the growing frustration being felt among junior crew who have seen no change to their seniority in a number of years.

I am certainly not one that thinks our own pay and conditions can be maintained indefinitely, whether we have a B pay scale or not, but I think this might be a way to stop the movement of Qantas cabin crew jobs to other countries.

DirectAnywhere

16th Jul 2006, 12:21

I take your point Twiggs now you've explained it like that.

I hate to say that I still don't think it will work as no-one can survive in Australia on what the Thais are paid or on what our new Jet* International crew based in Saigon, Taipei, Denpasar (insert 3rd world city here...) will be paid. LowerLobe used Jet* (domestic I guess?) as the baseline but I would suggest that even this will be seen as too expensive in years to come.

Additionally, I'm still struggling to understand why we are suggesting to our unions methods they can suggest to management to cut Australian workers terms and conditions. It's about time we collectively grew a backbone and said enough is enough!

There was an interesting article in the Sun-Herald in Sydney today regarding the percentage that manufacturing makes up of total GDP in developed economies. Australia at 13% was far and away the lowest of the OECD nations. China was well over 30%. To paraphrase the CEO of Bluescope Steel, it's totally unprecedented for a developed economy to have less than 10% of its GDP made up of manufacturing but that is precisely where Australia is heading.

In short, who is going to be be buying these cheap airfares? The drive to force down the salaries of Australian workers will make even the cheapest of airfares too expensive. How many Chinese factory employees on 2 bucks a day can afford to fly? Yet we are still happy to swallow the line that job creation is the most important thing to keep the Australian economy healthy. I would suggest that it's a combination of how many new jobs are created combined with how much those new jobs are paying that is most important, not merely their quantity.

Cheers and thanks for your measured reply to my rant!

qcc2

16th Jul 2006, 22:56

"I am certainly not one that thinks our own pay and conditions can be maintained indefinitely, whether we have a B pay scale or not, but I think this might be a way to stop the movement of Qantas cabin crew jobs to other countries".:=
Continues to canvase the idea we should be working on jetstar salaries. :ugh: pretty pathatic.:{ QF will continue to employ offshore for the following reasons.
no super
no bidding system
max usage of A days
dont want f/a's to stay more then 3-5 years
not enough flexibility in the system
if you analyse our recent domestic collegues EBA you might find its not a paycut which was the key to a successfull outcome to the EBA but FLEXIBILITY:D . a mix of casuals, unlimited part time for all ranks, a range of flying hours to suit personal,seasonal flying, etc.:O

sydney s/h

16th Jul 2006, 23:19

The last EBA is a paycut if you do Tasmans in S/H.

twiggs

17th Jul 2006, 00:07

She continues to canvase the idea we should be working on jetstar salaries. :ugh: pretty pathatic.
QCC2 where do you get this idea that for 1: I am a woman and 2: that I think we should be working on JetStar conditions?

I have only ever said that our conditions are far superior to anyone else in the industry, and that I believe we could easily renegotiate some of the cream of our conditions to try to ensure that we are not made extinct.

Stop being so dramatic!

(edit: changed lesser to Jetstar, because any change to our conditions will be lesser to some extent in the view of some)

lowerlobe

17th Jul 2006, 21:45

QCC2,

The reasons you state are exactly the same reasons that I believe that a "B" pay scale is warranted.

We have already been sold out as people have fallen over themselves to apply for jobs at VB,AO, J* and probably J*international and in doing so undercut our conditions and threatened our flying.

If we do nothing,then the company will continue to erode our flying with J* and it's child J*international.

If the proposal is attractive to the company to the point that they start to employ new cabin crew for QF L/H then we would for the first time in years have career progression .

The company could have that exact flexibility with L/H and that would be of great benefit to the company and existing crew.

If those same people are so keen to work for the pay and conditions that are being offered by by Darth Star then why not work for QF L/H for the same

qcc2

17th Jul 2006, 23:05

lowerlobe, GD will grow J* international regardless of F/A's are being cheaper or not. QF will also continue to drive down costs regardless if we have a b scale or not. my feeling is that the next promotions come out of akl. if you want job promotion transfer to akl under jetconnect conditions. as i said in my previous posts their cost structure is too good not to continue. or would you like to see AWA's in OZ LH with most conditions out of the pictureand on half pay?:sad:
the other major issue here is pilots salaries as well as the general cost structure between QF and J*(domestic and int.). interesting to watch the current ongoing domestic pilots EBA and the proposals on the table.:ooh:
even with the office redundancies there is a lot of "fat" left to be trimmed out of QF. just look in our department. how many GGM/GM/BM/CCM/CCTM are there? 10 years ago we had one GM and a few other managers.lets not forget their salaries/bonuses are tied to cost structure.:ugh:

lowerlobe

18th Jul 2006, 01:40

QCC2,
I understand what your saying and personally I find the idea of a "B" pay scale less than palatable.
However,we are faced with a problem and some like Twiggs and the faaa are telling everyone (including the company)that they agree with Darth that we are too expensive.Twiggs has said that we should give up some of the cream of what we have but she has not suggested exactly what.

The problem with those statements is that the company reads them and thinks great,let's rip them apart,they will do anything to keep their jobs

So what do we do about it..

(1) Do absolutely nothing and just cop a hiding at the end of 2007

or

(2) Make some changes and maybe do some damage limitation.

If it is as bad as you suggest,we are history no matter what we do so it can't hurt can it?

I agree with your statements about the managerial level(and I am saying that with tongue in cheek in calling some of them managers) being higher than ever but that is the state of play.So at least if we are proactive and put the ball in the company's court at least we are trying and may achieve something and that is why I suggested the idea of a "B" pay scale at least as a starting point.

If you or anyone else has any ideas apart from throwing in the towel...... post them

Lurker@L5

18th Jul 2006, 09:11

It's just been confirmed that senior executives within Qantas "People" (aka the Personnel Dept. alias the Dehumanising Resources Dept.) have instructed their underlings to begin trawling the detention centres of Nauru in search of possible Jet* Int. candidates for cabin crew positions.
They are looking for employees who will sit up and thank the Qantas multi-millionaire management team for the scraps of bread and cup of water thrown them.

Wed Webbing Woop

18th Jul 2006, 11:03

......"how many GGM/GM/BM/CCM/CCTM are there? 10 years ago we had one GM and a few other managers.lets not forget their salaries/bonuses are tied to cost structure."
Agree entirely QCC/2.
The Crew Connect Management "experiment" has been an abject failure. We are left with a disconnected, disengaged , group of non-flyers ( CCTM's/CCM's) who have been infected with the "apathy plague" that has swept across this once great airline.
I was speaking with mine last week. She is "over it". Not reaching their KPI's-no $$$$$$ bonus-a year of hard slog -all for "jack", then to be told try harder then just maybe next year you may reach target!!!!!
Walking over to the A-building to Staff Travel-no one looks you in the eye, no one acknowledges one another, no one makes conversation/small talk. The Qantas family is disfunctional.
Touchee Darth-game , set, match.
Roll on Geoff Star.

lowerlobe

18th Jul 2006, 21:32

We all know what we think of the corporate area of our company (and a lot of other company's as well) and of most of the office dwellars and I know they frustrate the heck out of us but continually having a shot at them here serves no purpose....

I don't believe that we are doomed and that we cannot negotiate a deal in some way.It won't be like the old days but I never believe we can or should just give up.

Let's come up with some ideas because we all know that although Darth has his cheap offspring and people are falling over themselves to work for him we can always appeal to his lust for savings.

Let's come up with ideas ....................

qcc2

19th Jul 2006, 06:33

lowerlobe

19th Jul 2006, 09:35

QCC2,

I like the idea of a play but as long as it is not a Shakespearean comedy where the protagonist usually gets done over big time when everything that can go wrong usually does....

How about these for an idea for a title..."The Merchant of Mascot"......."Midsummers night dream in Mascot" ...or my favourite ..."MacDarth"

We all know who would play the role of Shylock but I would like to know what the pound of flesh he will inevitably want is going to cost...

Taildragger67

19th Jul 2006, 11:37

lowerlobe we are not doomed but it becomes very difficult to negotiate or get engaged if the other side is not interested in ideas or options.:ugh: as for ideas how to approach the next eba keep a close eye on the domestic pilots outcome (whenever that may happen).
i know of a few collegues (and my humble being included) have presented ideas which would give them more flexibility, without infringing the EBA, ideas to save money etc. as usual the go into the black hole in QCC4 and disappear. maybe the turn up one day when someone in there needs to justify their jobs. := one tries very hard not to have a shot at anyone personal/collectively, but given the state of the department, politics, nepatism etc. we might try to write a comedy play and publish it on the internet. come to think of it, its not a bad idea.:D

If you write something to them and later they present it as their idea, ping 'em for breach of copyright :} .

Copyright exists in letters (as literary works) from the moment they're written. And you don't have to put any marks on them, to indicate copyright - it simply subsists or it doesn't.

Might have little effect re the overall negotiation but it would put on record that they're nicking ideas := and open the question as to why it was rejected when first presented.

Lurker@L5

19th Jul 2006, 21:32

"The Merry Managers of Mascot"
or
"The Taming of the Crew"

Act 1 Sc 1.

Kev: "So what do you think of my views of Balmoral Beach ? Its serious money in HR! Here (throws new f/a the keys) you can drive the Porsche. We'll swing by Leslie's house for a bottle of Cloudy Bay - the filtered views of Lady Macquarie's Chair are to die for!
Then its out to Mascot to continue to screw down those ungrateful, spoilt long haul cabin crew.
Tonight its drinks with Singo & Geoff -we're looking at putting together a $30m TV commercial - Geoff reckons we'll use 300 school kids! Should be a belter. "I still call the flying Australian public a bunch of suckers!"
What sayest thou fair hostie?"
F/A: "Onward thou brave Qantas Manager"

qcc2

19th Jul 2006, 22:27

:} :} :} :D :D :D

Shlonghaul

20th Jul 2006, 02:14

:D :D :D Thou have done outstanding work Lurker. Can't waiteth for Act 1 Scene 2. Just one question where does Bottom fit into this? Perhaps starring Action J? Must goeth now as one wishes to relax & unwindeth with a glass of finest mead.
Well doneth Sir Lurker of Stratford/Mascot Upon Avon
:D :D :D

Lurker@L5

20th Jul 2006, 05:37

Scene: The Qantas Boardroom

Kev: Hail thy fat Falstaff -you looketh like that pile of human sludge Toomey! An look fair hostie here cometh his side kick The Clown -you'll knoweth him by his Bow Tie!

Well met freinds!

Clown: We heareth there is still much gold to be made at Qantas . The workers are ripe for the fleecing.

Falstaff: Like two dogs to our vomit we return to the scene our our greatest pillage. What say you to a performance bonus! Fair hostie wench - a glass of sack for we senior managers and be quick about it!

Kev: (aside) Forsooth, 'tis Ground
Hog day.

Lurker@L5

20th Jul 2006, 14:37

Scene:Upon the Mascot moors.
Enter King Lear Jet accompanied by his sychophantic Italian servant -
"Howl , howl , howl thou jet blast! Why Il Duce do my people hate me? A plague upon my senior management team for bringing us thus low!
My employees loathe me -and 5 minutes of folly on the photo -copying machine and my Queen's heart is colder than an aircraft chiller unit! Ah, that there were but a reset switch for her heart!"
Duke of Borghett: "Still thy beating heart good sire! Indeed , your haughty, condescending manner doth rub the employees the wrong way . And as you Know the Earl of Hewitt's report brings bad tidings.
Lo Australian Airlines was not your greatest idea , Jetstar Asia continues to bleed the royal purse dry , the slot at LHR is a white elephant and Lord Greigg completely botched the hedging job you gave him with the oil barrels but other than that........
My daughter doth despise me and now my physicians tell me I am soon for that eternal purgatory -the hangar for the A380.
But before I go Borg - bring me that dog's scrotum - that two faced traitor , that blaggard -MAURICE !
He that would steal the workers' secrets then sell his soul to the company in exchange for his forty pieces - a place in Hades is set aside for him along with Sheer & Lance!
Enter guards with Maurice bound -
Lear Jet : (produces rapier from under cloak-stabs) :"Take this thy scumbag you and your casuals will rot in Hell!" A generation of Australian full time jobs destroyed by you, you little prick!"
Now where be the Clown ? methinks he covets my CEO job. Last night I didst hear him refer to my stewardship as A COMEDY OF ERRORS!
There is treachery afoot in the board room. Where is the idiot son Goanna Jnr?

Quickly -a horse a horse -my airline for a horse - or even a train - anything but these unprofitable, stale and weary pieces of aluminium tubing!

Let us away Borg . tonight I tell the board and management that they are going to eat one big **** sandwich - no performance bonuses & a 20% pay cut to show my people we too can be role models.
But first I must ring Singo. I wonder perchance if he still has Liz's phone number . Now there be a bosom a king may find solace in !
Let us Away
(Exuent King Lear Jet & Borg.)

surfside6

20th Jul 2006, 18:00

Aside from the self indulgent nonsense, where is the AVIATION content?:confused:

lowerlobe

20th Jul 2006, 21:11

Surfside6 .....A sense of humour goes a long way especially in this business ...

There is nothing preventing you from posting "AVIATION content" if you prefer....

sydney s/h

20th Jul 2006, 22:00

Isn't the LHR base actually a financial success?

I have heard that they have saved a substantial amount of money up to this point - more than they had intended.

And from first hand experiance the crew onboard are very good.

Now - DO NOT attack me. I was just wondering why people are saying that the base is still a flop.

I'm not in the base nor do i care to go there. I'm Australian based crew so get that thought outta your head before you unleash on me.

lowerlobe

20th Jul 2006, 22:41

Sydney S/H,

I suppose it depends who told you that it is a success and I suppose that on board service is very subjective.With most airlines you can get horror stories or ones that are full of praise depending on who you are talking to.

It also depends on what your definition is of a success.

Personally I would like to see an audit company's figures of not only the LHR base but also BKK as well not to mention LAX and JFK's as well.

I'm sure that the LHR based crew are being told that it is an overwhelming success but then you would expect that as all of us know what controlled information we are fed in QCC1 and at the roadshows.

If it is as much of a success as we are told then why are they not publishing the figures pre base and post base....and not just on the wall in the LHR office.

Politicians and others constantly bend and twist numbers to get when they want something or to justify their decisions so although it is still working I can't help but be cynical..

The proof of the pudding will be in Dec 2007 when our EBA expires and if the LHR Base is as good as they say they will want to expand it when the overseas cap will probably be lifted substantially if not completely.If it is saving money then they will be looking at using the LHR base crew to do FRA's as under the current system over there they can pax a crew to FRA from LHR then operate to Sin easily then when they return to FRA just pax them back to LHR again.

Think of how much money that would save the company..no more accomodation costs in Mainz or allowances not to mention overtime....Darth would be very happy

sydney s/h

20th Jul 2006, 23:06

Lower,
thanks for the feedback.

I agree that the onboard service is subjective, you can have a good crew from any base on any day and vice versa.

I am not privy to any financial reports so i certainly cannot say that it has been a success, just from what i had heard (which i suppose doesnt mean alot!).

You think that your o/s base cap will be lifted next EBA? Thats one thing that you should really try and hold onto.

qcc2

20th Jul 2006, 23:11

LL/Sydsh i agree there are different comments made by various camps as to the success of the lhr base. fiancially i think its a coverup. from my personal experience having taken over a number of aircrafts from lhr crews its a mixed bag (so is the rest of qf). but i cant see them paxing in and out of fra as uk flight duty limitations for cabin crew make this most likely impossible.:ugh:
jus a reminder that most countries in the world now have flight duty limitations (that includes all our asian competitors as well) for cabin crew. you might want to write to casa and ask why Australia hasn't got their act together:ugh:
casa's ceo is bruce byron and he can be contacted at
[email protected]

lowerlobe

21st Jul 2006, 00:19

Sydney S/H,

As far as the cap increasing I don't have any firm information but I would not bet any money that it won't .The company would certainly love to lower costs especially with fuel the way it is and that is why I suggested a "B" pay scale as a way of preventing L/H going the way of the dinosaurs.

The VR package has to be in this afternoon at 5pm and there will be more than a few crew working out the pro's and con's over whether to take it not I imagine

QCC2,As far as CASA is concerned time will tell but I think there are always a lot of backroom politics being played in relation to anything that may cost the company any more.

When I was in LAX a few weeks ago lining up for the security screening for the JFK shuttle I was talking to an American F/H .Interestingly she said it was illegal for them to do a tour of duty such as we were.Shen then asked about what happens when an extension to that TOD was asked for .I told her we would hold a vote and if it was unanimous then we might or might not do the extended TOD.She looked in amazement and I asked if they did not hold votes in their airline and she said yes they did but it was not unanimous ,if one crew member voted NO then the whole crew voted NO....

Have you emailed Mr Byron and if you did ,what did he say?

qcc2

21st Jul 2006, 02:24

i haven't emailed casa thats the lh faaa job. as our reps they should be looking at those issues a lot more, which we all know is sadly neglected (remember some of our hidious patterns). :sad:
came across a lh csm who does the regulatory work for shorthaul. i believe he was a previous lh union rep. http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/allairlines/nat05-06.htm
under regualtory affairs report you can see they are doing something. :D
the american collegue you spoke to is right in regard to FAA regulations.
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d6b9ea9d2007d1712d7d51cebed42c65&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.19.16.10.4&idno=14
google is a wonderful research tool:D

twiggs

21st Jul 2006, 06:03

i haven't emailed casa thats the lh faaa job.

Which begs the question, "why did you post the email address?"

lowerlobe

21st Jul 2006, 08:27

Quote from Twiggs,

"Which begs the question, "why did you post the email address?"

Perhaps it is a way of subtly reminding the FAAA that it is their job to do things like that and to let us know the result !!!!

Interesting that S/H FAAA has seen fit to employ GM because of his talents but not our union.I hope we are not disadvantaged by losing his expertise and contacts but thats politics I suppose.

sagy34

21st Jul 2006, 14:21

QCC2

If you think that it is the FAA's job to let managment know that rules are being broken, then you shouldn't be flying!!!!

Our job is all about safety, isn't it!!!!:ok:

Stop hiding from the problem and do something about it.:=

Rememeber (if you have bothered to do the research) CASA does have a anonymous reporting system if you are scared of reprimand.:D

Remember safety is always our priority:ok:

woblewomble

21st Jul 2006, 16:16

As told to me by F/A who talked to jeff her self YOU WILL HAVE A JOB BUT YOU WONT LIKE IT. From the man himself.

qcc2

22nd Jul 2006, 00:15

:D the reason that i posted the ceo email address is a subtle reminder to the faaa (and encourage individuals to get involved) that they are not doing their job. :ugh: sagy we dont have any legislated rules only industrial agreements(the old cliche of self assessment is still around).and yes,as an individual you can send in a anonymous reporting complaining about certain safety concerns/issues, i am aware of it. the overall aim of the discussion is to get the faaa proactive and bring ALL aussie cabin crew in line with worlds best practise and have flight duty limititons/ fatigue management system legislated.:D

mostie

23rd Jul 2006, 11:55

As the KIWIS don't operate under our award i don't think that there are ANY limitations to how Qantas decides to work them........

I'm pleased to hear that your collegues fullfilled their LAWFULL OBLIGATION by reporting unfit for duty due to their lack of rest/fatigue levels.

Wouldn't want them breaking the law now would we???

Bazzamundi

23rd Jul 2006, 21:45

For pilots the minimum rest between disruptions is generally 12 hours if there is a 3 or 4 man crew (which covers all LA flying). The minimum rest becomes more than 12 hours when the previous duty was planned greater than 16 hours.

Eden99

24th Jul 2006, 05:16

EBA 7 CERTIFICATION
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION (AIRC) APPEAL
As previously advised, on May 10 2006, Commissioner Raffaelli of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, certified your EBA 7 (FAAA Newsletter QF17-06). The Commissioner’s decision followed hearings on whether certain provisions (rostering) contained within your agreement were discriminatory to the extent that the agreement should not be certified.
As members would also be aware, post certification, a number of initiatives have been implemented including your wage increase back paid to 1 July 2005.
Unfortunately the Association has recently been notified that an appeal has been lodged challenging the decision of the Commissioner. The appeal to the AIRC has been filed by those representing the two flight attendants who originally intervened to stop the certification process.
Your Association is extremely disappointed that the matter is not concluded and there will once again be uncertainty regarding the status of the certification in particular the provisions dealing with rostering. However, as previously advised, your Association does not believe that the provisions discriminate illegally and we will take whatever steps are necessary to argue that the appeal should be rejected.
What happens now?
Notwithstanding the appeal, the Association and the Company are agreed that any new EBA 7 initiatives should still be progressively implemented.
The Association understands that members will be concerned with the uncertainty over this appeal in particular around their rostering arrangements. There is also considerable debate amongst the membership over the matter as to what’s really involved in the challenge. The AIRC was not and is not being asked to arbitrate on changes to the preferential bidding system. The challenge is mainly a technical and legal argument that the rostering provisions discriminate illegally on the grounds of gender (women) and family responsibilities.
Therefore, if the appeal is successful, no one should under estimate the potential consequences and impact on the allocation of work.
No date has been set for the appeal at this stage and members will be kept informed of any developments on this critically important matter.
Written and authorised by John Playford, Manager Industrial Relations and Darryl Watkins, Divisional Secretary.

Eden99

24th Jul 2006, 06:37

24 July 2006 ID40-06
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
AGREEMENT REACHED OVER BONAVENTURE HOTEL AND LAX ALLOWANCES
Cabin crew will be aware that the FAAA has been in dispute with Qantas over safety related concerns associated with the Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles. The FAAA and AIPA (Australian and International Pilots Association) have also been in dispute over the meal allowance rate for Los Angeles.
We are pleased to report that Qantas and the FAAA, with the assistance of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) have reached a negotiated “package” agreement that resolves both disputes.
BONAVENTURE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
The primary reason why the FAAA listed a dispute in the AIRC was because we were receiving reports from members, particularly from women, about personal safety concerns. There were also several incidents which the FAAA viewed as serious.
We listed the dispute in the AIRC, but as members would be aware from previous newsletters, the AIRC was not prepared to issue an order requiring Qantas to move crew from this hotel. Rather, the AIRC requested that a four month review period occur and that the situation regarding safety be monitored.
In the intervening period, the level of adverse communication from crew to the FAAA about the hotel has fallen off dramatically.
AGREEMENT
1) Qantas will facilitate and support an inspection process of crew hotels by the FAAA.
2) Qantas will commit to take all reasonable steps to ensure that rooms will be allocated to cabin crew in a priority and manner that will mitigate the impact of noise in cabin crew rooms.
3) In recognition of issues of safety in respect of the surrounding area, a free shuttle bus service of up to 16 return trips per week to Pasadena will be introduced by Qantas. Qantas long haul cabin crew on slip in LA will have priority on-load for the shuttle service. The buses will only be available to Qantas employees due to insurance implications.
LA MEAL ALLOWANCE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
Each year a review is conducted of meal allowances paid in slip ports. The FAAA, AIPA and Qantas jointly undertake this review. The review that commenced in October 2005 resulted in disagreement over several ports but in particular the major disagreement was over LA.
The FAAA subsequently listed a dispute about this issue in the AIRC. The AIRC held a conference between the parties and asked that further discussions occur between the parties in an attempt to resolve the issue. The FAAA advised Qantas it wanted a package approach to both the Bonaventure hotel issue and the LAX allowance issue.
AGREEMENT
1) The LA allowance will be increased from US$101.40 per day to US$108 per day, an almost 7% increase.
2) There will be a retrospective adjustment to LA meal allowances from 1 November 2005. Crew who have done LA patterns will receive a retrospective increase to patterns flown since 1 November 2005.
3) For the annual review later this year, the new US$108 rate will be adjusted in line with the inflation figure for the LA- Riverside-Orange County Food Away From Home index.
CONCLUSION
All of you would be aware of the difficult circumstances that are confronting us, both in general industrial terms arising from the new industrial laws and specifically, from the pressure emanating from the fuel price issue, which in turn is driving Qantas to identify savings on a broad scale
In view of the current environment, the FAAA is happy with the negotiated outcome on both issues, particularly in the context that we find ourselves in as Long Haul cabin crew.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.

funbags

25th Jul 2006, 06:46

So, an already long standing agreed upon process of hotel inspections and a shopping shuttle bus fixes the safety/security concerns that the FAAA protested about for so long. :rolleyes:
Cabin crew - are you happy with this ????

Eden99

25th Jul 2006, 07:02

25th July 2006
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CLAUSE 11 OUTRAGES - Dispute notified by FAAA in the Commission
Qantas Long Haul Cabin Crew would well be aware that the FAAA has written on a number of occasions about Disciplinary proceedings involving crew. What we haven’t effectively conveyed to you is our utter frustration in dealing with a level of sheer incompetence with “a few” in cabin crew management.
We have attempted to find sensible solutions to the performance management of cabin crew and for the most part it works fine and most in cabin crew management strike the right balance between affording procedural fairness to the crew member and considering whether an investigation should be handled via an informal discussion rather than a formal process
Last night we handled an emergency call from a member of over 20 years advising that a CCTM had stood him down and was holding him out of service as a result of allegations of serious misconduct. The letter sent to the member contains the allegation that “you were seen putting a UNICEF envelope in your back pocket”. Clearly some CCTM’s are not aware that there is no actual back pocket in the Morrissey Uniform.
The member was horrified at the implication of that allegation and immediately offered to meet with the Company the next day to discuss the matter. This request was denied and on that basis the call was terminated.
From the FAAA’s perspective any allegation should be investigated. But we insist that holding someone out of service on the spurious allegations of putting an envelope in his pocket would capture most if not all Cabin Crew in the same boat at some stage. To suggest that the act of putting an envelop in a pocket or apron pocket is somehow justification for allegations of theft and standing a person down and holding them out of service will not be tolerated by the FAAA.
To that end we have sought legal advice and intend to notify an immediate dispute to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the total mismanagement of this Clause 11 process by Cabin Crew Management.
We have no desire to damage Qantas, its public image or the image of our members. The suggestion that a Flight Attendant would potentially steal UNICEF funds is anathema to this organisation and every flight attendant who has supported it willingly over many years.
Given the ease with which a spurious allegation can be made we suggest that flight attendants may wish to modify their approach to the UNICEF collection. If it becomes necessary for the issue to be dealt with by further advice to flight attendants we will not hesitate to do so.
The crew member concerned is totally devastated by the process and the allegation. What we find appalling is that it was made by another flight attendant. Further we say the whole matter could have been resolved on the aircraft.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division
Copyright © 2006 FAAA
:: home ::newsheets :: must-knows :: report forms :: planeFAAActs :: links :: software :: contacts :: login
Site produced by Sconic Consulting

captaindejavu

25th Jul 2006, 07:35

The eight (8) required proofs to sustain an offence of larceny/theft.....

1. The defendant.. (i.e. the person, properly identified, who has been accused)
2. ...took... (i.e. clutched, grabbed, took hold of, etc)
3. ...and carried away... (i.e. 'asportation' - any discernable movement. Taking something with the intent to steal it, then putting it back immediately, is STILL stealing)
4. ...property... (tangible goods or items. e.g. 'Land' is not 'property' that can be stolen)
5. ...of another..(an identifiable owner. e.g. You can't be convicted of stealing abandoned property like a car. The owner may be a custodian e.g. Qantas, Australia Post, dry cleaner, etc)
6. ...without their permission...
7. ...without claim of right... (e.g. you cannot steal jointly-owned property or something that is proven to be yours or permitted to be in your possession); and

this is the kicker !....

8. ...with felonious intent.

ALL EIGHT PROOFS MUST BE MET. ALL OF THEM. Good luck proving numbers 6, 7 and 8 !!!!!!! This has a VERY profitable lawsuit written all over it !!! I hope he sues the pants off them.

Crusty Demon

25th Jul 2006, 09:22

Came accross the following forum which may contain a bit of information for you lot:

http://www.cabincrew.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=10

There is a lot of info regarding everything relating to cabin crew in Australia, but interestingly enough there is no mention of Qantas it seems among the topics.

Did you lot manage to get banned from there as well?:=

speedbirdhouse

25th Jul 2006, 09:39

I cant tell you how many times a passenger has handed me a unicef envelope during the flight or how many times I have put them in my pocket to be put in the UNICEF bag when I get back to the workstation.

Just another example of QF gestapo like tactics.

Engagement anyone..........?

lowerlobe

25th Jul 2006, 09:41

Funbags,

Not only do I find it annoying that the faaa have got the company to agree to a procedure that they had already agreed to (now that is a huge win) as you correctly pointed out but that the faaa did not ask the membership if they were happy with the offer of a shopping bus instead of moving to another hotel...

This could be a new point of law..

If one party in a dispute agrees to a solution in that an existing agreement that was previously used and agreed to is accepted to resolve the said dispute ...is that called an excursion in redundancy or a superfluous exercise in law or maybe a redundant superfluous rhetorical snow job.

So because the area around the hotel is considered unsafe the faaa get the company to put a shopping bus on!!! So that we can walk around an area that the company moved us away from ....This is right out of a comedy sketch.....The boys in Monty Python would love this one.

By putting the bus on the company is admitting that the shopping area around the hotel is not safe...or they would not have made this offer..

How many crew are there in LA at any one time?

If you miss out on the bus because it is full what happens then ?

This is another huge win for cabin crew and the faaa and Darth must be shaking in his boots with the thought of another confrontation with the faaa...no wonder they gave in to the allowance dispute.

Now it looks like the company under the disguise of 2 S/H cabin crew are having another go at the seniority system...They would love to say "sorry crew but we have to go to an allocated rostering sytem because the commission is making us"

Is it too late to apply for VR??????

cartexchange

25th Jul 2006, 10:05

anyone know the name of this unfortunate UNICEF victim,if so PM me.
I bet you the Kiwi sociopath had a hand in it!

speedbirdhouse

25th Jul 2006, 11:00

Quote- "I bet you the Kiwi sociopath had a hand in it! "

No, it was fat boy slim.

sydney s/h

25th Jul 2006, 12:33

Lowerlobe,

with regards to your post i can assure in this occasion that its not the company challenging the seniority issue, it actually is 2 SH crew (one is a current CSM and the other an ex CSM now FA).

I can even give you their names - they are in the Sydney base. Its no secret in the base although the AIRC have kept their names out of the transcripts.

lowerlobe

25th Jul 2006, 18:23

Sydney S/H,

Thanks and I know who you mean as well but I am just wondering if anyone is motivating them or helping them in some way.

You can imagine how much the company would like to see the end of the seniority system.After the VR anyone with more than 10 years would leave because they would have absolutely no say in what their rosters turn out to be.

The company might offer something like a weighted system so you might be able to pick one trip per roster but basically it would be just like the old days but without a 75% stand down and that alone would take a lot of fun out of the job.

qcc2

26th Jul 2006, 01:33

the australian newspaper

BA to tighten baggage rules
Ginny McGrath
July 20, 2006
PAYING pound stg. 120 ($295) to take a second suitcase to Australia sounds steep, but you could be better off under British Airways' new strict baggage policy.
The airline has simplified its baggage policy by limiting economy class passengers to checking in a single bag weighing no more than 23kg. The new strict weight limit and flat rate fee to carry extra bags will leave domestic passengers worse off but will benefit long-haul passengers who want to travel with a lot of luggage.

For passengers travelling after October 11, the airline will no longer check in any bag that weighs more than 23kg. Previously passengers on domestic flights could take bags of up to 32kg, but now passengers in any class, on any flight, must take items out of their luggage if it weighs over 23kg.

For business and first class passengers this is less of an issue because they can check in two pieces of luggage weighing up to 23kg - both on short-haul and long-haul flights.

If items have to be removed from a checked piece of luggage, they can be transferred to hand luggage, which will from July 5 be in line with the baggage policy of EasyJet, allowing passengers to carry bags of unlimited weight on to the aircraft (that means 23 kg). The only criteria is that a passenger can lift the bag into the overhead locker, and that the bag will fit in the locker, so it needs to be within the dimensions, 56x45x25cm. In addition to this bag a laptop-sized bag or handbag can also be taken.

The limit is the same for all passengers, regardless of the class they travel in.

In addition to the new policies above, passengers can continue to check in one piece of sporting equipment free of charge, such as golf clubs or skis, and from October 11 families travelling with infants can carry 23kg for each infant (up from the current 10kg) plus a pushchair and a second piece of carry-on luggage.

The Times

after checking BA's website the new policy will be phased in from july. wonder how QF is going to respond with its 7kg cabin a piece luggage policy.
can anyone tell me the weight limits of overhead lockers on 747/777/333?
this should make boarding more interesting on all codeshare flights:ugh:

cartexchange

26th Jul 2006, 06:57

thanks for the info Speedbird.
you would think that fat boy slim would have learned his lesson with the "Nick" affair, but looks like it has only made him more determined to persecute crews.
I wonder who the poor soul was?
But most of all I wonder what the real story is!

sydney s/h

26th Jul 2006, 09:04

I take it that "fat boy slim" is in reference to a cabin crew manager? And "nick" is a FA?

Abit confused!:confused:

Mind you, that doesnt take much......

Wed Webbing Woop

26th Jul 2006, 12:26

Again , the Visitors have stooped to new depths. This latest outrage is an utter disgrace.
As has been discussed, we ALL have walked off an aircraft with Unicef envelopes in our pockets.............so f----'n what!!!!!
In case those buffoons haven't noticed we have almost 400 pax on a flight, and guess what we often work thru the night and are fatigued and guess what sometimes INADVERTENLY we forget to hand in an envelope and guess what ........we put it in the QCC/1 collection box !!!!!
We don't steal off UNICEF ( or any one for that manner)
TAKE A RUNNING JUMP YOU PEA BRAINS (aka Visitors)
Again the "stereotype Flight Attendant" role is belittled by people who have NO idea what we do.
Lets all stand in the lobby of QCC/1 and see how mnay of them walk out of the building with a Qantas issued pen, booklet or "tools of their trade".
Pleeeze Mr Brown if you are looking for Managers to chop..........look no further than QCC/1. Their use by date has expired , its back to Woolies to pack shelves for you all.
Good Riddance

cartexchange

27th Jul 2006, 07:29

leane... re EPS
yes you will expire and its illegal...
they have to put you in a class before your expiry date....dont worry they will get you for them......
they will even take you off a trip to get you in.......
Why dont you call ops and tll them that way you may be able to chose a date.
Best of luck
CArTEX

sydney s/h

27th Jul 2006, 10:14

leane

I got taken off EP's once (they were short of CSM's - shocking!) and then i didnt get them rescheduled that month. Low and behold i had holidays the next month so by then i am way out of wack.

The first day of the month i got back - whamo - EP's.

They can definatley extend you into 7months - 8 and your doing it on the 1st of the month.

Study up!

Wed Webbing Woop

27th Jul 2006, 10:47

Last night I woke up in a cold sweat.
It all suddenly makes sense to me .............MACQUARIE.!!!!
No I haven't been on the hoochy cooochy !!!!!
Follow me for a sec.
I have always been wondering WHAT management books those Dopes(aka Visitors) actually follow. Then I thought that its...........GOVERNOR MACQUARIE manual on how to set up a Penal colony.
We are in a PENAL COLONY.!!!!!!!!
Back in 1788 , if some poor coot pinched a loaf of bread ( aka Unicef envelope -by mistake ! ) . They were sent 20,000 kms away as convicts to work there rings off. No court case, just punted.!
Same same........ for crew.
Then the other MACQUARIE..............owners of the Airport. The most treacherous bunch of Corporate thieves in Australia's history...........make the guys at Enron look like pre schoolers !!!!!
Max the axe, Darth, il Duce, Fat boy Slim...........all making sense to you all now.
Its a MACQUARIE conspiracy !!!!
Now I can sleep. !!!!
www

cartexchange

27th Jul 2006, 11:49

I love your stories WWW please provide some more humour, Fat boy slim should be the new target....... I wonder what drove him to do this latest despicable act..

Sydney sh if you operated over your expiry date it was illegal and they did it to suit them.

sydney s/h

27th Jul 2006, 21:46

Who is fat boy slim??

qcc2

27th Jul 2006, 23:25

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao20/2011.pdf
legal requirement is still once a year. qf is considering going back to once a year to save costs.:eek:

cartexchange

28th Jul 2006, 00:25

Thanks for that link QCC2.
Well it looks like our AEPM is incorrect here is a cut and paste straight out of our current AEPM.

1.15.1.1 Proficiency Requirements
• A crew member shall not be assigned to emergency duties in an aircraft unless
that crew member has under-taken and passed an Emergency Procedures
Proficiency Test, which shall be current for six (6) months.
• An Emergency Procedures proficiency test taken within 60 days before the
expiry date shall be deemed to have been taken on the expiry date and is valid
until the normal Emergency Procedures date.
• Aircrew must be aware of the expiry date of their Emergency Procedures
Training and advise their Manager well in advance if annual Emergency
Procedures revalidation appears to have been overlooked.
• Cabin Crew whose Emergency Procedures recency has expired are not
permitted to operate out of their operating crew base. If recency expires due to
down-line disruption while on a tour of duty, they may operate only as Assist
Cabin Crew back to their operating crew base.

qcc2

28th Jul 2006, 03:41

i think the paragraph reflects casa's position.
"Aircrew must be aware of the expiry date of their Emergency Procedures
Training and advise their Manager well in advance if annual Emergency
Procedures revalidation appears to have been overlooked".:ok:

H_Girl

28th Jul 2006, 04:43

My EP's have expired while i'm on A/L. As the first date they could allocate me is not until the end of the last week of this roster i have been given home leave until that date.

lowerlobe

30th Jul 2006, 01:00

Has anyone heard how many crew have put in a final expression of interest for VR ?

Perhaps some of those here that are not in the faaa (we really believe you) but seem to have a lot of inside information can tell us.

It will be interesting to see the change in seniority after VR is completed.Our bidding might be looking a lot better not to mention holidays as well

Rumour has it that the allowance in LA would have been a lot higher however the faaa was worried that the company would replace all of us on the LA's with AKL crew if we had pushed it....interesting if you consider that there is something like 360 rooms a night in the misadventure and I'm not sure how many crew there are in AKL but I doubt they could do the flying with the amount of LA's and SFO's we now do.

twiggs

30th Jul 2006, 02:48

Anyone else hear this, or think it is a possibility, that cabin crew will be slipping 24 hours in NYC when the flights become daily?

lowerlobe

30th Jul 2006, 05:34

Leane7,
Thanks for the info on the AKL base numbers.I would not worry about the overseas cap as the faaa almost certainly would also do nothing about it either

Even if the company doubled the number in AKL ,I doubt that the company would have the numbers to take us off the US trips.Especially when you consider that the attrition rate on the other side of the pond is horrendous and think about how many crew are currently being used to operate LA's with the JFK shuttle not to mention the new SFO's with the YVR shuttles.I'm fairly sure that there are more than 360 rooms a night used at the misadventure alone.

Again it would appear that the faaa has done what it is best at and that is capitulating.The 3 stooges led by Ben Dover really out think Darth at every turn.They organise a small increase in the LA allowance to let us think they are looking after us and really it was the company who wins again

argusmoon

30th Jul 2006, 06:19

The armchair champion...not one scintilla of an idea but a helluva lot of criticism.
In case you haven`t noticed legislation has all but emasculated the unions in Australia.
The leadership of the FAAA have been handed a poison chalice.
The job is not made any easier by individuals such as yourself who carp on and on and on.
The VR was your chance to show your stuff and leave.
But hey,you are still here.
Either, the jobs not that bad, or life on the outside is way too tough for you to survive.:{ :{

lowerlobe

30th Jul 2006, 06:41

Ahhh the faaa comes back with it's usual retort but little fact...

Under the current formula the allowances are based on a restaurant that the company and union agree to use within the confines of the hotel.In this case the company even nominated the restaurant ,so that is a no brainer.

The formula then works out that the daily allowance should be a lot higher than the one agreed to by the faaa.....When the union has the right to go for the acceptable amount why did they go for the lesser amount...

The AKL crew are flat out doing the flying they have been allocated and indeed must be stretched if you look at some of the slips in NRT such as I just have (80 hours at times for AKL crew) how are they going to be doing all of our States trips....

Argusmoon ...I did not take VR because I like the job and want to continue and as such have an interest in what the faaa is or is not doing.I want to know why the faaa continues to roll over..but then again if that is all you know what to do then stick with it

Wed Webbing Woop

30th Jul 2006, 10:28

Just heard that last week on a NRT-SYD sector a F/A with 20 yrs on the clock decided that he needed to show off his "one -eyed trouser snake" to the female CSS .......IN THE GALLEY !!!!!!!!!!!
This is based on Rumour , and as this is a rumour network...........can anyone confirm or deny ???
Crikey ! the FAAA Industrial Officers must be working their clackers off. What with all of the hearings in the Commission recently , maybe they're regretting the move from Sussex St.............William st ( AIRC ) is only a 5 min cab ride.
Anyway, the final numbers should be announced this week. Word is that there was a massive surge on the last 2 days with in excess of 420 applications coming in.
So..................now for the FINAL COUNTDOWN.

ozskipper

31st Jul 2006, 15:20

WWW - are you serious? Or is it a piss take that I've missed?

Lurker@L5

31st Jul 2006, 15:32

WWW-
the f/a you speak of was just following the new enhanced Y/C procedures. Its called
"IN THE BONE"
Traditionally the old chief steward would present his schlong on a silver salver delicately garnished with parsley -however I believe with the new procedures the trouser snake is to be garnished with pink &white marshmellows.

lowerlobe

1st Aug 2006, 00:56

If this rumour has any basis of fact then the individual is in trouble and to be honest I have no sympathy for him.

We have enough problems to act on and do not need this sort of stupidity.Not only do we have drug runners and people convicted of child pornography but now we have this rubbish.

lowerlobe

1st Aug 2006, 21:57

The rumour mill is going overtime with the number of crew applying for VR is closer to 600.

Apparently or so the rumour goes , there was a landslide of applications on the last 2 days.

If this is true,will the company take all the crew wanting VR or will there be some disappointed crew.Also how will the company decide who gets VR and who gets a knock back.

I wonder if any of those in the faaa have put their hand up for the package?

ozskipper

3rd Aug 2006, 06:41

I don't know how much truth is in this, but I have heard that anyone who applies for the VR will get it. Again, just the rumour I've heard upline.

qcc2

3rd Aug 2006, 09:21

give everyone the package when they have trained a lot of domestic as csm's (with more if need be, and made it clear to lh there will be no upgrades),have plenty of casuals on hand. that means less regional flying. :{

Wed Webbing Woop

3rd Aug 2006, 09:49

OK, by now you probably have got the gist of my posts.
A once loyal Qantas flight steward, who saw the "glory daze" of the 14 day States trips ( via Nadi, HNL, LAX combi to PPT -SYD ) etc etc bunkered down in the bowels of the LLG.
Time marches on and the CHANGE process has meant that I'm moving into the REAL (sic!) world.........I'm happy about this, no regrets.
BUT............the ONLY question I want answered now is......WHEN?????
After 25 years with the Rat, I have signed my VR document and now I want to plan for the future.
Everytime, I have asked the question of my Cabin Crew Team Manager ( aka "Chump" ) I get......."ahhh, mmmm.
So then I asked a cabin Crew Manager (BIG Chump )................same lame, patheic response:
"Ohhhhh , Ummmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmmm, ahhhhhmmmmmm.
.......not sure when its going to be!!!!"
You are kidding me!
Is it October?, is it December? No body knows.
I even called our illustrious "pie eating" representatives ( aka Chimps).
No surprise here either.
They were "busy"- out at meetings ( probably down at the Commission....again ) " No worries I said "...........don't bother calling me back, just in case the "rugless one" calls me and I'll have to listen to a War & Peace " response.
And now I understand our Short Haul "colleagues" ( yeah right) have been offered LWOP and VR. Have they been given a exit date ?????
I get the feeing its like, "last one to leave , turn off the lights".
www

cartexchange

3rd Aug 2006, 11:44

Anyone have any more news on the UNICEF fiasco.
Its been very quiet.........
:confused:

Animalclub

3rd Aug 2006, 13:58

I reckon the CC thread deserves at least one finger up if not two!

I trust that this was said with tongue firmly in cheek:E

twiggs

3rd Aug 2006, 22:49

why does the cabin crew thread always get a "thumbs down" symbol?

the thumb symbol is just the average of the votes people have submitted about this thread.
The only way to change it is for people to give it a better rating, so I suggest you put in a vote Lurker@L5.

qcc2

4th Aug 2006, 00:02

since the announcment of VR one would assume the boys/girls in the bunker would have had some sort of strategy/plan :confused: in place how to deal with various numbers of exiting cabin crew. appears resources works to normal routine-no idea what to do.:{ :ugh:

Wed Webbing Woop

4th Aug 2006, 08:37

QCC.............you mentioned STRATEGY.
This word is bandied around by the high flying "corporates" but it means JACK at QF.
There is NO PLAN. Its just a running series of Wham Bam,/ Slip , Slop, Slap, -near enough is good enough approach to Customer Service, Fleet planning, .....and as for People mangement-the "strategy" is ridicule, rip and regurgitate!!!!!
This VR is becoming yet another debacle.
Again, we have done what was required, ie follow the VR process, stick to their deadlines. Now for the exit date ..........P--s orf ! we are not ready to release you yet.
I have left 3 messages on voice mail today of our People managers-nil response and now I was just told from BOS that the Dopes are off until Tuesday due to Monday being a Bank Holiday.
Hello.............last time I checked I was working for an Airline. Since when do our People Managers work for a defacto Bank.
We get shat upon constantly by others saying that all crew are rorters and take heaps of sick leave blah blah blah.
So when WE need service from a legitamate querey ......we now have to wait another 3 days.
These morons have outdone themselves this time !!!!
www

capt.cynical

4th Aug 2006, 10:11

WWW
At the fear of my repeating myself, I have said on other occasions similar to this.

Those that CAN, DO
Those that CAN'T, TEACH
Those that can do neither, MANAGE

:* :ugh: := :D

ditzyboy

4th Aug 2006, 10:31

Today they have announced a leave reduction, temp part-time and limited VR program for SH. On the same piece of paper they list days where LH have been called in to cover shortages in planned SH patterns and that SYD open time is to cover PER shortages... All this when we are told PER and SH generally is over crewed yet they recruit Contract C (85 hour min) casuals like there is no tomorrow.

What the?! :confused:

Pardon me for being a ditz but I don't see ANY method in this madness. Can anyone enlighten me?

Also anyone know how the VR at LH will be awarded? I met a CSM in SIN the other day who was very excited about the prospect of leaving after 34 years.

Wed Webbing Woop

4th Aug 2006, 12:50

"Pardon me for being a ditz but I don't see ANY method in this madness. Can anyone enlighten me?"

Good one Ditzy.....you ARE the enlightened one.
There is TOTAL madness in their methods..............its called UTTER STUPIDITY.
I for one will be attending the next AGM ( Aug 17 ) and "voicing " my disgust at those punces masquerading as board members.
I've got nothing to lose!!! The "hit squad" ( team Managers) will be impotent to retaliate as .............I'm outta here. &&^$#@@$%**^%!!
My question without notice ( except if a board member reads this !!!! )
1.WHAT WILL BE THE EXECUTIVE SHARE BONUS DIVIDEND BE FOR THE 2005/2006 FINANCIAL YEAR ??????
2.WHAT IS THE STRATEGY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WORKCHOICES???

Crossbleed

4th Aug 2006, 18:25

nevermind.

Wed Webbing Woop

4th Aug 2006, 23:33

Characters:
GGM=Group General Manager.
BM=Base Manger.
CM=Cabin Crew Managers

Scene: Meeting room gathering with all of the above present.( May '06)

GGM: "OK, everyone we have just been told from HR that we are not "best practice". A benchmark organisation ( eg Westpac) has an attrition rate of 11%. Cabin Crew L/H is 1.5%. We need a strategy to get this figure up, plus we need to rid ourselves of the 35-55 demographic of pot belied , balding stewards and pearshaped menopausal hosties. We've hit them with "Crew Connect", a crap EBA, LHR base, Regional flying, LSL direction, expansion of Kiwi Base, Buenaventure, JFK shuttles.......and they still won't leave. Any ideas??
BM: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
CM:ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
GGM: Come on you clowns , your KPI bonus is at risk!
CM#1: Oh, what about VR?
BM: Great idea,why didn't I think of that.OK, CM#1 you draft a expression of interest document. Lets say the number will be , ahhhhhhhhhhh, what about my street number, ie 326!!!!!!!!!!!.
BM: Brilliant idea GGM. OK , eveyone lets get to it.
CM#2: Do you think we need to tell Pattern Planning?
BM: Shut up, we'll worry about that later.

LATER COMES......... there are over 500 expression of interests confirmed.

BM: GGM, well we got our numbers, now what???? We can't let them go, pattern planning tells us there is a crew shortage.
GGM: No worries, lets just turn all the flying over to Regional haul and recruit more C-grade Casuals.
BM: Still not enough?
GGM: Well, we'll boost the CNS base.
BM: Still not enough?
GGM: We'll make the AKL base like the LHR base, ie appoint CSM's and they can do their own thing .
BM: Gee, you're clever GGM, I would love to be able to make decisions like you one day.

MUCH, MUCH LATER.
After more delays the A-380 will be arriving-Nov07.

BM: GGM, we haven't got enough crew, the FAAA will not give us any more dispensations for minimum operating flights, we had to cancel 3 flights last week -due to lack of standby's.........????????
GGM: You idiots, can't you make a decision yourselves. This is our opportunity to bring in AWA's. Lets make a A-380 division........all on contracts. Employ young, nubile, spunky 18 year olds and lets roll them over and churn-em out.
CCM:1 The EBA states that the A-380 is to be crewed by L/H.
BM: The EBA is a thing of the past, its extinct, gone deceased.......get with it CM:1 or GET OUT!

much much much later.

All sitting in a Pizza Hut restaurant......end of finacial year bash
GGM: Thanks everyone for another great year. Our attrition/burn out rate is 16%...........
BM: Whooooooooo Hooooooooooooo
CM: Rah rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
GGM: Now, I only has to Sprites and 3 pieces of Ham & Cheesa pizza.......thats all I'm paying for!!!!!!!!

www

qcc2

5th Aug 2006, 00:08

keep up the entertainment:D :D :D
however on a more sad note our domestic collegues have accepted the IBIS dump in brisbane as new crew hotel. the standards are slipping fast:{ :ugh:

cartexchange

5th Aug 2006, 01:01

from what I have been told the PUB in Canberra is worse, its right in the middle of the housing commission complex, It's a Motel style accommodation,
Oh well, they constantly sell themselves short. Why aren't they calling their FAAA domestic and voicing their opinion!

mach2male

5th Aug 2006, 03:40

Once the Company has determined its manpower level requirements,and the VR has been finalized(Who Knows when that will be?)there will be some movement amongst the ranks.
CSMs are being asked to offer up names of CSSs who they consider would be suitable for promotion.A short list of names will then be drawn up.
A similar approach is to be considered for FAs.
How do I know this?
I am a CSM and have been asked for some names.
How this will pan out with the interview procedure remains to be seen.
At least there is some hope of promotion for those who have been waiting for an indeterminable time.
Lets hope it is sooner rather than later.:D

qcc2

5th Aug 2006, 06:23

as long as every csm gets a say. that should make an interesting list.;)

mach2male

5th Aug 2006, 11:23

I have 6 CSS in mind.
I just hope that my input has a little impact.
If I make a mistake...I have to fly with the mistakes.
A very good CSS is worth his/her weight in gold:cool:

speedbirdhouse

5th Aug 2006, 11:44

Quote- "A very good CSS is worth his/her weight in gold"

---------

Too true.

AFAIK they also have the most demanding and least recognised job on board by far.

Does anyone really believe the buffoons that pass for QF CC management will choose the next round of CSM's based on OPERATIONAL ABILITY over the hoards of brown nosing, sycophants who are in their faces day in and day out ?

I doubt it.

After all, the present lot ["management"] are the most clueless we have EVER had.

surfside6

5th Aug 2006, 11:55

Somewhere there are a lot of villages missing their idiots:ooh:

Wed Webbing Woop

5th Aug 2006, 13:00

......................please don't get me started on my favourite topic.

I've already been booted out by Tightslot and sinbinned by DUNNUNda for my past Visitor diatribes.

Think you guys have summed up my feelings nicely.

Quick pass me the .................cough medicine !!!!!!!!!!

www

cartexchange

5th Aug 2006, 23:32

This just appeared in the latest CCN 31 July.
here is an excerpt..

General News
Let's shine on the world's stage - Qantas Airlines Strategy
Day 2006
"Believe in yourself, believe in management and believe in Qantas", was Executive General
Manager John Borghetti's message to over 700 of his staff at the annual Qantas Airlines Strategy
Day held at the Australian Technology Park on 5 July.

Believe in management, now that took a lot of guts to say that or the guy has absolutely no idea what's going on.
OMG what planet are they on,I have never known the staff in all areas of QANTAS that have such disdain and lack of faith in management.

qcc2

6th Aug 2006, 01:25

with a sense of humor:ugh: now thats funny:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

mach2male

6th Aug 2006, 04:44

1.I Believe that the management of Qantas Airways is totally remote from its workforce and the realities facing frontline staff on a day to day basis.
2.I believe that Qantas management care little about the company or the general health and wellbeing of employees or their families
3.I believe that Qantas management are motivated by incentive bonuses and these bonuses only.
4.I believe that as an employee I am seen as an obstacle to greater profit because I am viewed as a cost.
5.I believe that Qantas management are totally disinterested in what I think or have to offer.
6. I believe in my fellow employees and their extraordinary tolerance and capacity to adapt to change in the face of managerial indifference.
7.I believe that Qantas manages its staff through fear and intimidation.
8.I believe that the safety of Qantas Aircraft and employees is now at peril.
9.I believe the amount of renumeration received by management is obscene.
10.I believe that John Borghetti`s comments on July 5 are indicative of managerial remoteness from and contempt for Qantas employees in general.:ouch: :ouch:

speedbirdhouse

6th Aug 2006, 07:32

I do not dispute your right to your own opinion. I do dispute your right to post that opinion in this forum if it contravenes the rules.

Seven days forced vacation!

:mad:

Sunny Woomera

Lurker@L5

6th Aug 2006, 09:21

Great to see the Duke of Borg doing stand -up comedy for the troops in these hard times.
has anyone shown him the Hewitt survey results??
believe in qf management?! priceless!

B A Lert

6th Aug 2006, 09:50

mach2male wrote I believe that the safety of Qantas Aircraft and employees is now at peril.

You need to do one of two things: put up or shut up. If you chose the latter option, you should also resign.

Also, mach2male, if you really believe that Qantas is as bad as you write, do everyone a favour and resign before it's too late lest you be marched off for some psychological assessment.

qcc2

6th Aug 2006, 10:22

rule 1: dont believe anything you read here
rule 2: revert back to the engagement survey for a snapshot of qf employees and their thoughts.

Wed Webbing Woop

6th Aug 2006, 12:32

Hey .... BLA Lerty,
'Just to prove that we are all literary genii on this thread,- a quote just for you, from someone also great in the field of literature.
"MY WAY OF JOKING IS TO TELL THE TRUTH, IT'S THE FUNNIEST JOKE IN THE WORLD".
-G. B. Shaw.

hawke eye

6th Aug 2006, 23:37

Ba lert and QCC2,
belief in QF management took a massive nose dive when following Sept 11 all staff took a pay freeze. We did this because colleagues in our industry perished doing the job that we ourselves do. Mgmt used our sorrow and sympathy to ask for a wage freeze. Due to the circumstances world aviation was a huge mess.At the time it was not an unreasonable request.
What was astounding was 6 months later allegedly mgmt awarded themselves their annual bonus to be paid 3 yrs later so I was told.

How close that is to the truth I'm not sure can anyone varify as it was one of the big rumours which did undermine our faith with mgmt at the time.

What is fact is not so long ago many of the former line managers acted as strikebreakers, deciding to support the Company (right or wrong)during a dispute(stop work meeting). The reward from mgmt for line managers taking and making a stand on mgmts behalf was to sack them as line managers and kick them back to their lowly position of CSM. If you want to see damaged goods, low morale, negativity, disgust at mgmt and disgust at themselves for making a poor choice you need to fly with our former line management.

We as cabin crew were incredulous at how these line managers were treated for as Mr Borg says believing in management.
We recently witnessed what mgmt was prepared to work our kiwi and Thai buddies on last periods Africa trips. The slip formula was one, one, one, one! This stopped when allegedley 2 Thai crew collapsed after arriving at Sydney airport on one of these draconian trips.This sort of treatment of a foreign workforce is what Nike was criticised for.

Another great example is the overseas base increase. We voted to give the company an increase in base numbers. What is the reward or thanks? The Kiwis and Thais work 240 plus hours (massive fatigue - BA Lerty) while Aussie crew sit at home on reserve unable to get their hours up. The former two examples should give you a glimpse of some safety issues and how we are valued and rewarded for working with mgmt . Don't lets get started on that.

Our belief in management is underscored by the examples of management above, Im sure there are plenty more but these will do to illustrate our belief in management .Honestly its hard to believe.What is also incredulous is that mgmt needs a survey to find out why the staff are disengaged. Whats even more incredulous is the statement asking us to have faith in management. If it wasn't so serious that a very senior manager appears so far out of touch with his staff it would make a great skit for the review.It would bring the house down in uproarious gales of laughter. Unfortunately it is serious, and it is very distressing.
BA Lerty we have great belief in management. Our belief comes from how they have acted in past and recent times.
We believe in the kangaroo that represents all of the employees who have made this a great business which all Australians can be proud.The mgmt who are currently at the helm have enjoyed a business success given to them. Yes we now exist in a hard aviation environment but it speaks loud when mgmt continue to give themselves bonuses while nailing its hard working employees during difficult times.

I think we all believe that nothing will change and that we dont matter.

Why should we resign because we still believe in what we do and despite mgmt that come and go we are loyal to the Company many of us have helped build into the icon that it is famous for, great Australian service from pilots, engineers and cabin crew.

QCC2 do you think we wake up each day waiting to make negative criticisms about a company and a job we have loved for many years. We make the effort to contribute on here because we hope someone from somewhere who has some power and influence might see the difference between negativity and hope. Hope that there is a fundamental philosophical change with mgmt that staff are to be respected, valued, appreciated and maybe even rewarded.Is job security such a bad reward for hard working, loyal ,fantastic and professional staff?
They might also realise it is this staff that have largely contributed to the success our Company has and is (only just) famous for. Lets hope this value is realised and supported before our Company becomes likened with other former great institutions which have unfortunately met their demise. We live in hope.

rammel

7th Aug 2006, 07:35

I don't believe safety is jepordised on a flight at the moment (it may be when the engineering changes have taken full effect). The only reason for this is that staff don't want it to be unsafe. I know in my job, while I detest QF management and everything they say and do, I still do my job to uphold safety standards. If this involves a delay well so be it.

From the f/a's perspective I can see where pax safety may be compromised especially in a medical situation with a fatigued f/a.

hawke eye

7th Aug 2006, 07:54

Rammel
what if due to fatigue a f/a does not first check for fire before opening their door in an emergency evacuation? What consequences or detrimental effects to the decision making process will be caused by a seriously fatigued f/a? How would a fatigued f/a cope in a high pressure situation involving an aggressive passenger?

Safety involving flight attendants is medical emergencies, it is also unfortunately much more than that.:ok:

ditzyboy

7th Aug 2006, 09:27

keep up the entertainment:D :D :D
however on a more sad note our domestic collegues have accepted the IBIS dump in brisbane as new crew hotel. the standards are slipping fast:{ :ugh:

I can assure you that your domestic colleagues are just as disgusted at what is happening to our hotels as YOU are! We are the ones that have to stay in these dumps... What do you do when both the FAAA and the company just nod and smile? :hmm:

The FAAA doesn't seem interested in black-banning these hotels at this stage - to the dismay of most members. However, the FAAA is at least trying to get all issues (security, OHS, rest related) dealt with. Perhaps when it is shown some of these properties simply cannot be brought up to scratch things will change.

I am confused as to why the FAAA approved the properties given that they DO NOT adhere to the standard required. For sure "Nev and Von's Motor Inn" at Canberra is trying really hard to come to standard and Travelodge in Perth is being renovated but all this should have been sorted BEFORE changing hotels.

Another question. How can one approve a hotel WITHOUT staying the night and without seeing all room options / layouts? The checks for these properties seem to have been done in total haste and in trying to appease Qantas - NOT paying members.

This move has cost the FAAA in popularity stakes. However it would seem that they are trying to get things sorted. It is just a shame that the situation was allowed to develop in the first place.

capt.cynical

7th Aug 2006, 10:23

Be alarmed, very ALARMED,the next step will be shared rooms.
:eek: :mad: :{ :yuk:

Tropicalchief

7th Aug 2006, 20:49

:) :) :) QF Management have always been a pack of b*****ds. In the 34 years I spent with the airline, I can think of only two or three that I would give the time of day to.

What sort of organization has to use an outside agency to recruit some of its most important personnel? What does it say of the calibre of its management?

Qantas has always had the knack of choosing the worst possible people to manage its affairs, and dont ever think that promotion is based on merit. It has only had one decent CEO and only one half-decent Chairman. The current crop are hopeless and overpaid to boot for what they have achieved in recent years.

In terms of destinations QF does not fly anywhere in Europe except FRA and LHR. Nowhere in South/Latin America or Middle East, one city in Africa, nowhere in the South Pacific except New Zealand, one city in India, four in South east Asia, four in North America(five if you include Honolulu), three or four in North Asia. And with few exceptions not on a daily basis. Where does it compete?

In-Flight service with regard to the food is a disgrace compared to Thai and Singapore Airlines, and I refer to all classes. Domestically, service does not exist. On a recent flight from Sydney to North Queensland, after a long haul from New York, I asked for a scotch and soda, it was 8am, the CSM approached me and asked me if I knew what time of day it was. I did not get the drink. That is only one example. Business class. QF management has made the travel experience a nightmare, from check-in, uncompetitive baggage allowances, inflight service and comfort, arrivals and baggage services, all of these things have been downgraded in importance to the paying passenger.

In the main, the whole airline is in decline and it is due to inept and incompetent managers. Service is the key and the current management "team" can't deliver.

ditzyboy

7th Aug 2006, 21:24

it was 8am, the CSM approached me and asked me if I knew what time of day it was.

That is appalling. When a customer asks me for a drink and they are embarrased because it is morning I joke with them and say it is after midday somewhere in the world.

What is SH becoming? Too many people are bored with their jobs and threatened with the casualisation of our airline. End result is everyone seems disengaged and on a power trip for some reason (lethal combo!).

Myself and 4 PER SH colleagues attended a briefing in SYD yesterday and one older woman (casual!) got up and moved to the other side of the table when she found out we were from PER. The CSM announced they were working with their "Perth Cousins" (and sighed) and the whole thing was a disgrace. After 6 years flying I have never felt so uncomfortable working in the cabin. This CSM spent the whole briefing (and flight) whinging about the PER Travelodge and stressing that the next morning they were on the A330-300 and she didn't know the work positions and how to work the IFE. Totally unprofessional. She should know - simple.

Wed Webbing Woop

8th Aug 2006, 11:20

I was really hoping that 2007 would be the year that I would realise my ULTIMATE trifecta, ie:
1. The Howard Govt to be booted into oblivion.
2.South Sydney win the NRL premiership.
3.Darth would go back to his Wagga pub to do what he does best.... pull beers !!!!
But whoa is me...........news has just come in that #3 is unwinnable!!!!
I suppose 2 out of 3 won't be bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QANTAS EXTENDS CONTRACTS FOR CEO AND CFO
> SYDNEY, 8 August 2006: The Chairman of Qantas, Margaret Jackson, announced today that Geoff Dixon would continue as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qantas on an ongoing contract, replacing his current employment contract which was to expire on 1 July 2007.
>
> Ms Jackson also announced Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Peter Gregg, whose current contract concludes later this year, has also agreed to remain in
> his role on an ongoing contract.
>
> Ms Jackson said that continuity of leadership was particularly important in
> the current aviation environment, where the challenges confronting the
> industry have never been greater.
>
> "Geoff is an outstanding Chief Executive. His leadership and experience
> have been invaluable since he took on the role in March 2001, with Qantas
> outperforming most of its peers in the global airline industry."
>
> "Peter has been Chief Financial Officer at Qantas since September 2000, and we are very pleased that he will continue in this role," she said.
>
> "With the airline continuing to face tough operating conditions, with
> historically high fuel prices and increasing international competition, the
> Board is delighted that Geoff and Peter have agreed to continue in their
> current roles on an ongoing basis."
>
> Qantas Group Broadcast Message

Butterfield8

8th Aug 2006, 11:29

Il Duce will not be happy.
On another thread someone aptly named Dixon ,Il Duce and Joyce as the midget bullies with the appropriate syndrome.
How bloody apt...I`m still peeing myself laughing

Wed Webbing Woop

9th Aug 2006, 10:48

Yesterday I had to pick up a mate at QCC whose flight was delayed ( situation normal ). Getting bored with watching the Visitors scampering around "going to meetings", I decided to take the Product Centres advice and go to a FREE Bar-B for " Qantas Well -Being Week".
It turned out to be a total farce !!!!!
It was due to commence at 1130. At this point there were approx 50 staff from E & M , Freight, Airports waiting outside the "bunker"-QCA.
Finally at 1215 .............they were ready. By this time there were about 200 people lined up-......all cold and p---sed orf with the total "bunfight" they were witnessing.
At this point I jumped off the cue and just sat and laughed. I calculated the time, loss of wages and "piss off "factor ( immeasurable) would of blown Darths Sustainable Futures target to smitherines.
Fair enough.............doing something for the loyal worker bees and drones has merit. But to do it in a half hearted , disorganised, chaotic way just solidifies the contempt for the Wombats ( EXCO ) who reside in QCA.
( Am sure the planning for the Socceroos charters had just a tad more planning and money thrown at it then this abomintaion)
One poor coot who I walked back with, chucked his Organic Sausage Sanger into the bin-....the bloody thing wasn't even cooked properly ( this after waiting for 35 mins!!!! )
Again, this just illustrates what we have all being banging on about on this thread . People at Qantas who were once loyal and ENGAGED are now subjected to total mismanagement or to put in in Aussie Lingo:
NO BASTARD GIVES A STUFF ANYMORE!.
Wake up Margaret Jackson............you had a golden opportunity to move beyond Darth. You too have been spellbound by his "doom and gloom" predictions of the World according to Chicken Little.
The vultures are circling the carcass.
www

Bad Adventures

11th Aug 2006, 08:54

Cabin crew are now slipping in New York again! Does anybody know why?

DEFCON4

11th Aug 2006, 09:06

Some genius has finally figured out that its cheaper.
The overtime without a slip is huge

lowerlobe

11th Aug 2006, 09:20

I'm not sure how long we have been slipping back in New York or when we are supposed to be slipping back in New York but could it be that because of the new heightened security with the latest threat level the TOD would be excessive?

I bet that if we are back in New York we won't be staying in the Millenium for long,it will be some other location such as Long Island Ibis...

On another note,apparently L/H crew are now staying at the IBIS in brisvegas instead of the Novotel.......another great move in conditions ....

Perhaps someone here from the faaa.....sorry someone here that knows someone or has a distant relative or ex in the faaa can tell us the faaa's position on this hotel being approved by both the company and the union elected to look after our interests and rest during slips..

The silence from the 3 stooges is as usual deafening but then again if the rumour is true that one of the girls is taking VR then that tells us something

twiggs

11th Aug 2006, 12:45

I bet that if we are back in New York we won't be staying in the Millenium for long,it will be some other location such as Long Island Ibis...

The cabin crew hotel in NYC is not the Millenium, check the bid book.

argusmoon

11th Aug 2006, 16:17

...and this provides verification of Lowerlobes post.
Well done Twiggs.:D

lowerlobe

12th Aug 2006, 01:14

Interesting post Twiggs and Argus moon or should I say the faaa response team...it would be fine to read the bid book but being on LSL and not having one or being in the faaa office it is a bit hard to check one.

I also rang a mate that got home yesterday and the bid book was not out then(Friday) so TWIGGS were did you get yours from??????????....and you tell us you are not on the union....

Twiggs ..you went to the trouble of posting this response to me but you have not bothered to mention what or where the hotel is , so could you let the rest of us in on this top secet of where we are staying or is that on a faaa need to know basis.....

Are the tech crew slipping in New York staying at the same hotel as us or are they still at the Millenium????

As usual the faaa communication team could teach the North Koreans a thing or two about secrets ,selective information release and propaganda

As it seems we are on the subject why did the faaa sanction the IBIS as a crew hotel in Brisbane and why has the faaa not published a newsletter on this reason?

argusmoon

12th Aug 2006, 01:26

Lets clear a few things up....
1.I am not part of the FAAA response team
2.I was lampooning Twiggs response
3.Lowerlobe you are a diquehead
Everytime someone posts a response that is not supportive of your position doesnt mean they are spindoctors from the Company or the FAAA.
Take your head out of your rectum and try to understand your point of view is not definitve.:eek: :confused:

lowerlobe

12th Aug 2006, 01:35

Argus,
I apologise for my previous post as I thought you were supporting Twiggs and unreservedly retract any inference implied or otherwise that you are part of the faaa response team.

I also did not know you spoke french....lol

I'm also well aware that I am not the only one that has an opinion , however it is coincidental at best that a few here only respond to criticism about our esteemed union leadership

I would still like to find out from Twiggs were he/she has managed to get a bid book from or was she told by a taxi driver that has a relative who has a next door neighbour who knows someone in the faaa office .............also as at 11.30 am Saturday the 12th August there is no email and/or newsletter from the faaa about a return to New York.

argusmoon

12th Aug 2006, 01:38

Ring operations for confirmation if you are so concerned:cool:

Eden99

12th Aug 2006, 03:54

Argusmoon you were too charitable to lowerlobe. The french word you used to describe him is an understatement :-))
He clearly has only 1 great passion in his woeful life, and that is to criticise the FAAA over imaginary sins. The 1 thing he always demonstrates is his ignorance about nearly everything that he talks about in here.
1) The FAAA has not approved the IBIS hotel in Brisbane for Long Haul. Short Haul FAAA have approved that hotel for their crew.The Novotel continues to be the Long Haul hotel.
2) The slipping decision regarding New York was made late yesterday arvo by Qantas. This was communicated to the FAAA early evening yesterday (friday). The reason why long haul crew will be slipping temporarily in New York is due to delays that will be experienced with the new security measures introduced yesterday by US authorities in response to the LHR security situation. NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING CHEAPER AS SUGGESTED BY DEFCON4.
As for communication going out about this....... obviously the FAAA office is shut over the weekend........ it's staff are entitled to have their weekend break. Also, Qantas is still working out the details for the slipping arrangements in New York.
We will now see if lowerlobe apologises for his usual wrong outbursts. My bet is he won't.
Also, as argusmoon said, if lowerlobe bothered to ring operations or the FAAA emergency number he would have been told this information. But of course lowerlobe always prefers to make a dunce of himself with total drivel that he posts on here.
A sad life indeed!

Eden99

12th Aug 2006, 04:13

All of the info i posted above was obtained by talking to the FAAA on the emergency phone ( not that it was an emergency for me..... but clearly an emergency for lowerlobe).

It seems to me that lowerlobe is probably a non union member, hence the constant criticism of the FAAA.

Further, i would not be surprised if he was a scab. The only people who benefit from the deliberately innacurate posts by lowerlobe in his many guises on here, are the Company.

Lowerlobe is clearly schizo, for months he criticises the FAAA for his wrong perception of trading off conditions of which he can name none. Now like some rabid right winger he squeals for the FAAA to introduce B scales etc.

Aren't we lucky that lowerlobe is not in charge of FAAA policy....... what a mish mash it would be!!!

Is it any wonder that the FAAA correctly maintains confidentiality of any strategies. It would otherwise be posted on here by the sad likes of people like lowerlobe, fortunately these sad individuals are in the minority.

cartexchange

12th Aug 2006, 05:53

Eden 99
What has been happening with that poor UNICEF guy!
Can you enlighten us with any information!
Also I'm glad that the long haul FAAA has not approved the IBIS.
I know of 3 S/haul crew that have resigned with the domestic FAAA over the Canberra housing commission motel debacle, it was the last straw for them.

twiggs

12th Aug 2006, 12:44

Interesting post Twiggs and Argus moon or should I say the faaa response team...it would be fine to read the bid book but being on LSL and not having one or being in the faaa office it is a bit hard to check one.

Are the tech crew slipping in New York staying at the same hotel as us or are they still at the Millenium????

Lowerlobe, the bid book I was referring to is for 246 and is the one that is presently available on the cabin crew website.
Actually the accomodation in NYC was never deleted from the book when we started the shuttle (so it will be in an old one you may have lying around at home) and if I remember correctly, we had changed hotels the last time we slipped there. (Changed without faaa inspection I believe)
I originally put the hotel name in my post but then removed it as I don't think it is wise to advertise where crew stay on a public forum.
Finally when you find the bid book you will see that the tech crew hotel and the cabin crew hotel are not the same.

Why does printing facts that are readily available on the internet to QF crew imply that I have anything to do with or even know any faaa officials?

Eden99

13th Aug 2006, 02:29

Hi cart,

yeah the individual involved was exonerated last week........ as he should have been.

Hopefully, after that incompetent display by the Company, they will be a little more wary in standing crew down without proper investigation.

Hope that answers your question cart.:)

cartexchange

13th Aug 2006, 06:11

Thanks for the information.
well that is good news, but surely something can be done about such incidents, its totally wrong that someone can accuse another person of such a heinous act and get away with it.
I hope the individual concerned will take some kind of legal action against that person.

Lurker@L5

14th Aug 2006, 08:33

Eden 99-
what happened to the NRT guy who was only following 'IN THE BONE' procedures?
Has CCTM boned him?

On another note - with Goanna Jnr on the QF board & Dicko on the PBL -whats the bet the Jetstar Int. IFE will involve onboard gambling??

"Welcome to JET- STAR Casino in the Air!"
Life's a Gamble - and with our third rate pilots , our third world cabin crew and our Manchu Maintenance Centres -flying with us will always be a Gamble too!
So sit back (sorry the reclines U/S ) , relax ("that's $3 for the pillow pale!") and most of all...GOOD LUCK! YOU'LL NEED IT!"

MANAGEMENT WON'T FLEECE THEM ON THE TICKET PRICE - BUT IT'LL BE HIGHWAY ROBBERY ONCE THE DOORS ARE CLOSED! THE PAX WILL FEEL LIKE THE QANTAS EMPLOYEES NOW DO - SCREWED.

Mstr Caution

14th Aug 2006, 10:51

Re: The IFE having onboard gambling

I recall reading a few years ago that the authorities in the USA will not permit any form of video gaming activities (gambling) on board any aircraft operating in airspace or ports within the United States.

The regulation also stated that no aircraft shall be fitted with nor shall any passenger be capable of any form of gambling.

The reasoning behind it was concerns for the behaviour of passengers onboard, the effect to the community in general due to the social implications on gambling. The specific nature of airline operations which could expose a person to sit in front of a gaming machine for hours on end. The enquiry at the time also looked at the potential revenues that both US & foreign carriers could generate from these gambling sources. It was a sh*%t load of cash, however the study recomendation was that the benefits of prohibiting such gambling far outweighed the potential earnings for carriers.

It would take a change of US legislation for carriers to change such policy.

All that which I've stated above comes with a caveat, that since reading the article a few years ago that the ban actually became law. Which I believe it was definately going to.

So, should jetstar operate to Honolulu. Such activities would not be approved. Should Jetstar have gambling on other international services these aircraft would have to be dedicated to those routes. Once an aircraftt is fitted with any form of gambling machine (in IFE) it can't go to the States.

I hope the Jetstar team have looked at this scenario, or will they fit the fleet with such IFE only to find the can't operate them to the states.:8

Wed Webbing Woop

14th Aug 2006, 11:05

Doesn't it give employees a warm inner glow knowing that "world airlines are in crisis due to fuel price and LHR terror threat", BUT ......wait
.................the Qantas share price jumps almost 10 cents -thanks to Darth spelling out :
ALL THE WAY WITH AWA's
History will show that the greed and contempt by the Qantas shareholders ( Financial institutions and greedy pensioners) have driven this company to third world status aka Kingfisher airlines.
And what do we hear from our 3 ( minus one ) Pie eaters:
THE SHARKS ARE CIRCLING YOUR CREDIT UNION ( how prophetic and pathetic!).
The "Sharks " in this case are the Work non-Choices legislation-'cause there won't be any bloody money to put into the friggin Credit Union once Howard's Way sinks the boot into all of our clackers.

www

DirectAnywhere

14th Aug 2006, 12:13

Hey, Wed Webbing Woop, shouldn't your username now be Manuwal Infwation Handle?

Lurker@L5

14th Aug 2006, 12:18

You're probably right Mstr Caution -
then again -its all a hypothetical beause the ONLY THING YOU CAN BET ON ONBOARD A QANTAS /JETSTAR A/C is that the IFE WILL BE U/S!

(The IFE failures have become so bad that since the latest Maxwell Smart bust - now no in cabin ipods -they have put a dedicated paxing IFE engineer on all flights to the States & LHR -whose bonus is that stuff up coming out of? The goose who engaged Rockwell -Collins?)

Mstr Caution

14th Aug 2006, 12:42

Lurker,

You got that right.

I mate of mine flew to LHR on QF1 late June. Said it took most of the SYD-BKK sector to get the IFE working.

That's nearly as good as the sector he did a few months back where he was told the pax in the upper deck had 3 bottles of wine loaded (full pax load). The FA's had to scrounge arounge downstairs for some extra bottles.:8

qcc2

15th Aug 2006, 05:45

we made a mistake with the IFE. YES 450 million dollars worth of mistake.and not to mention all the costs associated with the ongoing stuff-ups. more bonuses please!:ugh: :ugh:

Wed Webbing Woop

15th Aug 2006, 11:35

So true about the IFE.
Just returned from a HKG trip............both sectors the IFE was stuffed. As usual the CSM spent the mandatory 3 hours trying to fix, reboot the system, then grovel to the FF's for the next 6 hours.
This system is beyond a joke..............its an utter disgrace.
There is such a thing called the Trade Practices act in this country , and each time a QF aircraft takes off with a U/S -IFE then Qantas is in breach of the Act. When pax complain- I don't do the usual and say "write to Geoff or John".
No .." best write direct to the Trade Practices Commission-25 York St, Sydney" and put your case.
Anyway, I was thinking of submitting an "innovations@ qantas " idea.:
1. Take off all overhead lockers. ( huge fuel saving).
2. Bring back the 8mm movie projectors. They rarely broke down, good colour and it will give the CSM something to do ( change over the cartridges).
What do you think ??
Got merit??
I might meet my CCTM and have a 1:1 power discussion. Nothing like a bit of brown nosing before I leave-who knows I might even be able to jag an eXcel award before I go( the $150 DJ's voucher will come in handy for Xmas giving).
www... aka :man-well infwation handle

hawke eye

16th Aug 2006, 02:31

The posts on here are getting more pathetic by the day.
I dont mind constructive balanced criticism but this is becoming so ridiculous it gives anyone reading it a false viewof cabin crew IQ.

For godsake stop picking on the FAAA. No one team has ever been perfect. Yes we get out manouvered from time to time. Usually by our own colleagues or new IR Laws. As is every other worker in society.

Those of you who continually bag those who have been duly elected by the majority I hope you are taking the package.If not stop being a talker and put your own hand up and attempt to do a better job under terribly difficult circumstances.

Or have you already had a go as a previously elected representative? I wonder......? either way contribute something worthwhile and stop reducing our credibility in front of our airline colleagues!

As for bagging the Company, we know the situation. Times change, management changes, even we change.Either accept change as part of life and get on with it. Life is not a blame game.How you have been conditioned to end up like this I can only imagine.If our lot is truly that bad LEAVE. Yes there are issues and there will always be issues. No matter how our airline or management evolves. That is why the FAAA need and deserve support not continual,pessimistic whinging and whining.:ok:
Only if life could be so easy that we all had the answer and everyone acted the way webbing loop and others suggest when they pontificate on here.
It is a rumour network not a continual whinge network. Yes lets have a whinge once in a while NOt all the bloody time. Last time I turned up at an FAAA meeting only 20 others turned up out of 3000.
That is not the FAAAs fault that is a clear example of where the problem on a union side begins. A union is supposed to be a COLLECTIVE group of people not 20 and the rest pay their fees and expect everything to be done for them!
Good grief what planet are you lot on? Look at some of the other unions and the size and running costs and what they achieve for their membership compared to ours.
No I am not a current or former union rep. I am an employeee who appreciates how the majority of union reps has attempted to protect and improve my work conditions. Some better than others.They get my thanks all the same!

qcc2

16th Aug 2006, 05:55

you have to move to another thread. this one is way below your intellect.:D btw, people dont go to the faaa meetings because they have lost trust in their representatives.you only have to ask crew upline:{

argus.moon

16th Aug 2006, 06:09

Hawkeye is 1000% correct
QCC2 you should move to another forum as this is way above YOUR intellect
Wed Webbing Woop.QCC2 and Lowerlobe...start your own thread ..misery loves its own company.
Most of the crew I fly with understand whats going on and appreciate the efforts of the FAAA.
QCC2 you are full of it :=:=
You three I hope will not vote for Little Lying Johnny this time.

twiggs

16th Aug 2006, 06:13

I think it's time that Lowerlobe, QCC2, Lurker@L5, Cartexchange and Wed Webbing Woop realise that people with similar views to them are a minority in QF cabin crew.

qcc2

16th Aug 2006, 06:37

instant response from the propoganda department. since 20 or so people turn up for every faaa meetings, what kind of message does that send?????????? :*
could anyone confirm or deny that one senior official is taking the package?

hawke eye

16th Aug 2006, 07:40

QCC2,
Not only was it the last meeting that only 20 people turned up it has been that way for the last lot of officials as well.
Crew only turn up if there is an industrial situation occuring. Both current FAAA and last FAAA regime have had big turn outs on these occassions and both have had the 20 odd turn up when it is business as usual. This is indicative not of your representatives QCC2 but indicative of us, the members!
Here goes the conspiracy theorists again QCC2, what the ? Does it matter if an official puts his/her hand up for the package? What is the big interest all of a sudden in one official applying for the package? If ALL of them or the majority of them had applied maybe there is some reason to ask the question.
Let me think have any previous officials taken a past package? hmmmmmmmm??
Once again lets try and make some implication that resonates guilt or lack of trust. As I said in my earlier thread pathetic.
By the way is webbing loop applying or doesn't everyone have an equal right to apply?
It's crew like you that unfortunately make me want to apply, unfortunately Im still too young :ok:

Wed Webbing Woop

16th Aug 2006, 10:37

I'm not even going to bother responding to the previous posts.
Now down to business.......................RUMOUR
In case you clowns haven't read the top of the page ....this is a Rumour network !!!
Latest rumour doing the rounds on QCC/1 is that the CCTM's are about to be punted under the guise of Restructure #2343. It will happen in about 2 weeks. The CCM's will then be the only one's left with Teams of F/A's + CSM's / CSS's-groups of 400+.
Oh well, the Vistors did have a longer GO then I thought and hip hip horaaay for sticking to their knitting!!!!
Now , what next ???????
www( and yes-I am going !!!! )

surfside6

16th Aug 2006, 12:46

Legally I can`t be forced to sign an AWA.
So what happens if I don`t...dismissal,demotion?
Nobody or website seems to have an answer?
Anybody help? :confused: :confused:

mostie

16th Aug 2006, 12:55

Hopefully the fascist bully boys who want us all working for a bowl of rice will be thrown out in 18 months time and we wont have to worry.......

Eden99

17th Aug 2006, 08:22

Jetstar pay plan August 15, 2006

AdvertisementNEW Jetstar employees working international routes will be offered less pay for longer hours than their Qantas international counterparts.

Commission from the sale of pillows and blankets will be built into new, five-year Australian Workplace Agreements that start at $41,000, including superannuation.

Michael Mijatov, of the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, said staff had been treated as "cannon fodder", but Jetstar chief executive Alan Joyce disagreed. "In the real world $41,000-$46,000 for a 38-hour week, most people would regard as a phenomenal salary, particularly with the conditions we're talking about," he said.

DEWI COOKE

Eden99

17th Aug 2006, 08:26

Jetstar to break union hold

By Steve Creedy and Lisa Macnamara

FLIGHT attendants on Qantas international budget carrier Jetstar will be required to sign Australian Workplace Agreements under which commissions from the sale of food and pillows will count towards their pay.

In a blow to the union movement's hold on the airline, Qantas will today announce it is introducing the AWAs as part of its strategy to cut costs and promote Jetstar as a major brand within the Qantas Group. The Flight Attendants Association of Australia fears the new employees will be forced to work longer for thousands of dollars less than their Qantas colleagues.

The five-year contracts will see part of the cabin crew's pay treated as a "productivity bonus''. This will include extra hours worked and commissions from selling on-board food and entertainment. "This is a really provocative move,'' said FAAA international division secretary Michael Mijatov. Union fears for one of their traditional stongholds were heightened after Qantas chief Geoff Dixon told the Nine Network he planned to introduce individual contracts to other parts of Qantas. Mr Dixon emphasised the need for flexibility in the way the airline employed workers.

"We've been virtually a union-held company for many, many years,'' he said. "We have 16 unions, we have 45 enterprise bargaining agreements within the company and 20 of them, or 15 of them, are live at the moment. In other words we are negotiating them and ... we will be announcing very shortly that we are going to put AWAs into certain areas of the Qantas Group.''

Unions vowed yesterday to fight the changes, accusing Qantas executives of receiving "obscene'' salaries while trying to drive down the pay and conditions of airline workers. ACTU president Sharan Burrow said it was "incredible that Qantas -- with the profits it's demonstrated, with the obscenity of the salary levels of management -- can turn around to their own workers and say, `We're going to force you onto AWAs'.

Australian Services Union assistant national secretary Linda White said Mr Dixon had been a posterboy for the Howard Government's industrial laws, and it was no surprise he wanted to introduce individual contracts.

She predicted his comments would make the unions work more closely together. "I guess what he needs to understand is there is significant resistance to AWAs out there in the workforce,'' she said. ACTU secretary Greg Combet said he would seek details about the proposed AWAs from Mr Dixon today. "We've worked well with Qantas over a long period of time to try to make sure the company improves its competitiveness,'' he said.

"It's been a very constructive relationship, so naturally any suggestions by Mr Dixon that the company might change its strategy away from collective bargaining and towards individual contracts is a concern to us.''

By Steve Creedy and Lisa Macnamara, The Australian, August 14, 2006.

DirectAnywhere

17th Aug 2006, 09:25

From Alan Joyce:
"In the real world $41,000-$46,000 for a 38-hour week, most people would regard as a phenomenal salary.

From The Australian:
New figures show the average weekly wage is now $1,043.10, or a little over $54,200

What planet do these guys live on? This arrogance borders on the unbelievable.

surfside6

17th Aug 2006, 09:26

What happens if I dont want to sign an AWA?
Help me with my options please.

Wed Webbing Woop

17th Aug 2006, 12:53

You take the Far.................Q !!!!!!!

jaded boiler

17th Aug 2006, 15:05

surfside, if i may;

1. You remain on the existing terms and conditions of your current EBA, provided it was signed up to prior to March 28 2006, without any hope of an improvement in salary or conditions, until such time as you are unfairly dismissed for "operational" reasons (read made redundant), without recourse.

2. You enter into a new EBA, which, at its nominal expiration date, is terminated with 90 days notice from your employer, after which you potentially enjoy a salary of $484 per week, 10 days per annum sick leave, 12 months maternity leave, 4 weeks annual leave and 38 hours per week guaranteed work averaged over 1 year.

3. If you're not happy with the above (option 2), you reluctantly agree to an AWA reflecting whatever terms and conditions your employer deems "competitive". :yuk:

4. You resign.

Nothing to fear though, be soothed by the fundamental message from the federal government's propaganda campaign from earlier this year, funded by 400 million dollars of your and all other tax payers' hard earned, "you can't be forced onto an AWA".

surfside6

17th Aug 2006, 16:28

Sounds like I am pretty much stuffed.
I can only hope that that lying little swine Howard gets voted out at the next election. :{ :{

Eden99

17th Aug 2006, 22:39

Qantas gets tough on unions
Staff have been asked to reassess their role, aviation writer Steve Creedy reports
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 18, 2006
QANTAS has signalled it is prepared to play hardball with unions to get the productivity cuts it wants.
The airline has already sidestepped its flight attendants union to sign up Jetstar International cabin crew on Australian Workplace Agreements.
Qantas pilots in a new freight venture have been put on AWAs, and the airline is calling for a freeze on domestic pilots' base pay while indicating it wants its international pilots to work more hours.
Chief executive Geoff Dixon yesterday warned that Qantas would not be satisfied with incremental change, but needed to "make fundamental change on a much greater scale than in the past". He said: "While we will continue with existing efficiency programs, unfortunately, much of our savings over the next two years must come from labour costs, which totalled $3.34 billion in 2005-06.
"This will involve, as already outlined, job losses and significant changes to achieve greater flexibility and productivity."
In a letter sent to staff, Mr Dixon emphasised that each segment of Qantas would have to become a profit centre, stand on its own record, recover its own cost of capital and compete within the group for investment.
He said no one part of the business had a right to growth and investment, and the next phase of segmentation would change what it meant to be a Qantas employee - meaning that careers, pay and conditions would depend on the performance of the segment.
"Our freight business needs to be more aligned to the freight industry, not the airline industry," Mr Dixon said. "Similarly for catering and engineering."
Qantas executives also fired a shot across the unions' bow, warning that those who did not accept change could find themselves sidelined.
While Mr Dixon said there was no union blacklist, he noted that some unions were "easier and more pleasing to deal with". He was particularly critical of the Flight Attendants Association of Australia's international division.
"They are the same group who threatened Qantas quite aggressively last year when we were doing an AWA, and we just don't have to deal with people like that," he said. "We do have to deal with them in Qantas, but we certainly don't have to inflict them on Alan (Joyce, Jetstar CEO)."
Mr Dixon denied AWAs would become the airline's major industrial tool, saying the agreements were just one of a range of instruments available.
He believed Qantas would "without a doubt, in the foreseeable future" mainly use enterprise agreements, and it would be wrong to suggest it would not continue to deal constructively with unions.
He said the company was due to meet ACTU secretary Greg Combet next week to discuss where Qantas was headed.
But he would not rule out the use of AWAs in any area of the company.
He also would not comment when asked whether new aircraft such as the A380 would be operated by crews on AWAs.
"We're not ideological on this, despite what some people think," Mr Dixon said.
"But we certainly will use what instruments are best suited to the various businesses we have. They won't be ruled out anywhere but they're not necessarily ruled in anywhere either."
The Qantas chief said the decision to use AWAs at Jetstar International was a case of cost-avoidance rather than cost-savings.
Qantas was already losing market share because of an uncompetitive cost structure, and the alternative to setting up Jetstar with the lowest possible costs would be to cede opportunities to competitors.
"Those cost structures are not Asian cost structures. They are still very, very good jobs within the Australian context," he said.
Mr Dixon was unable to say how many of Jetstar International's flight attendants would ultimately be based in Bangkok but said Qantas did not have an aggressive strategy of moving jobs offshore.
"That's not our strategy but we're saying, and we've got to say quite openly without causing undue concern to people, that we must look at the all the best and most viable avenues for us," he said.
"But our preference always -- always -- is to have the jobs in Australia if that's possible."
But FAAA international division secretary Michael Mijatov accused Mr Dixon of trampling over his workers to get cheap labour.
He predicted Jetstar would base a sizeable proportion of its cabin crew in Bangkok, where flight attendants working for Qantas earned just $1000 a month.
He said Mr Dixon was creating 200 inferior jobs at Jetstar, and 400 quality flight attendant jobs were being destroyed at Qantas.
Mr Mijatov said Qantas was one of the world's most profitable airlines due to the hard efforts and concessions from staff over the past decade, while executives ran rampant with obscene bonuses.
"Not content with that, now they effectively want to drive people down to McDonald's-type conditions here," he said.
"They are such big heroes now they've got the Howard Government's industrial laws and everything's weighted towards them.
"They are trampling over their workforce with no regards to how people feel, their job security or their living standards."
Other unions also remained unconvinced. Australian Services Union assistant national secretary Linda White accused Qantas of whacking employees to divert attention from management's failings.
"It's back to the days of Henry Ford (who hired thugs to club dissident workers) but at the moment the club is Work Choices," she said.
"The employees are 100 per cent behind the airline but are very concerned at the path management is now taking them down.
"We think also that the travelling public don't like this either."
Australian and International Pilots Association general manager Peter Somerville said Qantas was announcing a significant $480 million profit and giving its two most senior executives $12 million payouts in circumstances where short-haul pilots were being told to take a three-year pay freeze.
He said pilots were long-term employees who wanted the company to make money and share in its success.
"We're concerned about the double standards between what Qantas says and what it does," Mr Somerville said. "And we're concerned about the effect that Qantas management is having on the reputation of the company."

DirectAnywhere

18th Aug 2006, 00:57

"We do have to deal with them in Qantas, but we certainly don't have to inflict them on Alan (Joyce, Jetstar CEO)."

Must be nice for the F/As to know that they're being "inflicted" on QANTAS.

argus.moon

18th Aug 2006, 01:03

:{ The Qantas/Jetstar bus service coming soon to an airport near you

captainrats

18th Aug 2006, 01:08

Think HIH,Think Enron.....Think Qantas

Wed Webbing Woop

18th Aug 2006, 07:47

Darth and the " assorted trough feeders " must be feeling priddy smitten this afternoon.
The press, markets and financial institutions have swallowed the "spin".... hook line & sinker.
ITS THE COST OF FUEL, ITS THOSE BLOODY UNIONS, ITS THOSE BLOODY FOREIGN CARRIERS......blah , blah, blah.
When for Christ- sake is the media in this country going to wake up to the lies and deceit dished out by the BIG corporates. We're not just talking Qantas here. The behaviour of the Banks, Fuel companies and assorted retail heavies is appalling. Greed is Good, roll on the Exec Bonuses.
Can someone please expalin to me what Dixon means by segmentation leading to "profit -centres". Sure, I get Freight, Catering.
But how the friggin hell can Cabin Crew be a profit centre??????
What cash can they generate other than by bending over and taking massive pay & condition cuts.
I don't wat to gloat on here by saying-"I'm alright jack 'cause I'm taking the package"! BUT to see what is happening to friends/colleagues of mine in this industry sickens me.
Watching Dixon on tele last night , just made me realise that this turkey has just one agenda:
Drive the pay & conditions of all Qantas staff downwards so that it matches or gets below our lowest competitor......eg. SQ, EK or UA.
The only way out of this quagmire is to: ( quote Greg Combet)... " confront this scourge( work non-choices) together ."
Roll on 2007.
John Howard and your bunch of bowl- lickers.......your days are numbered.!!!!
www

speedbirdhouse

18th Aug 2006, 08:18

Quote- "John Howard and your bunch of bowl- lickers.......your days are numbered.!!!!"

---------

I hope so WWW.

Can't for the life of me see why the average Australian would want to see their hard fought terms and conditions stripped in order to increase bonuses for the trough feeding swine that run business in this country.

Then again history has taught me never to underestimate the stupidity of the Australian public......

speedbirdhouse

18th Aug 2006, 08:24

18th August 2006
Attention all Qantas Long Haul and Australian Airlines Flight Attendants
GEOFF DIXON BLAMES FAAA FOR JETSTAR AWA’s
On 13 August 2006, the FAAA became aware that the Qantas Group would announce the following day that individual contracts (AWA’s) would be introduced by Jetstar International for the international cabin crew that it would be employing.
On 14 August 2006, at a press conference in Melbourne, Alan Joyce, the Chief Executive Officer of Jetstar announced the AWA move, along with some detail of the conditions that the Jetstar International cabin crew would be employed under.
These conditions include working a potential 304 hours per 8 week roster for a salary of $41,000. The $41,000 includes superannuation, “productivity bonuses” for working extra hours, commission on selling food and extra skills such as language. According to Alan Joyce, most people would regard it as “a phenomenal salary” and another Jetstar spokesperson was quoted in the Australian newspaper on 14 August as saying “we believe the overall package is comparable to other industries with similar skill sets such as cafes and restaurants”.
At a news conference in Sydney on 17 August, Geoff Dixon blamed the airline’s “biggest critics” – the FAAA International – for choosing not to negotiate a collective agreement for new cabin crew for Jetstar’s international operations. Other comments by Geoff Dixon directed against the FAAA included “they (the FAAA International Division) are the same group who threatened Qantas quite aggressively last year when we were doing an EBA (with them)” and “we do have to deal with them in Qantas, but we certainly don’t have to inflict them on Alan (Joyce, Jetstar CEO).”
The comments from Geoff Dixon are extremely disappointing and disparaging to all Long Haul and Australian Airlines crew. His reference to being threatened last year by the FAAA, actually relates to 2004 when we were collectively fighting against Qantas’ intentions to send more of our jobs to overseas bases, to exclude us from any London flying etc.
What he conveniently dismisses and doesn’t mention are the co-operative measures we have engaged with the Company since the EBA7 dispute of 2004. These include the JFK Dispensation, the Charter Agreement, the agreement over the Bonaventure, the agreement over LAX allowances, just to mention some of the more significant measures.
It is pretty discouraging that Geoff Dixon is so dismissive of our contribution (i.e. Long Haul and Australian Airlines crew) to the Company’s continuing good health and profitability. It is deplorable that years of accepting wage increases below community outcomes and even a wage freeze by all Qantas Group employees is so easily forgotten.
It is an outrage that Qantas executives take credit for the good years, and reward themselves with massive bonuses, but when times are tough, as they suggest they are now, they blame “external factors,” then move to destroy their employee’s conditions, to send more jobs overseas and still pay themselves even greater bonuses.
At least cabin crew and all Qantas employees now know what the senior levels of management really think of them and what their true intentions are.
Despite this the FAAA will, continue to act in a responsible manner, as we have done since we were elected. We will continue to co-operate with the Company in order to protect employment. We will not be diverted or provoked by the Company, to act in a manner that would be detrimental to our member’s interests.
However, we will always stand up for our members and if that means being labelled as “aggressive” or being the Company’s “biggest critics” – so be it.
The move to AWA’s clearly demonstrates the Company’s intentions to destroy our conditions of employment using the Howard Government’s new industrial laws.
We are working closely with all Qantas unions on this matter and with your continuing support and by sticking together we WILL overcome these challenges.
I urge all of you to write to your politicians and to the Company to register your disgust at these latest developments. I further re-iterate that the defeat of the Howard Government is essential in order to stop a complete onslaught on our conditions after the Qantas Long Haul EBA expires in December 2007 and January 2008 for Australian Airlines.
I further urge those very few remaining non- members to join the FAAA IMMEDIATELY for your own protection.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.

Butterfield8

18th Aug 2006, 10:31

www.qantasunions.com.au.
This is the rallying point for ALL QF unions:D

jaded boiler

18th Aug 2006, 14:15

The Qantas CEO and others of his ilk are only able to manipulate their employees in the fashion in which they presently are because of legislation passed by our federal parliament.

The first and foremost action that any average, fair-minded Australian can take in order to effect some modicum of difference to the abysmal direction in which our society is heading, is to vote against the incumbent government at the next federal election.

Get educated as to how our prime minister with his fellow shabby team of elitist, unethical, mendacious vermin, in league with their army of media sycophants, are, little by little, destroying our way of life, along with so many of the small things that we take for granted, then get angry. Spread the word amongst family, friends and work colleagues.

rammel

19th Aug 2006, 00:04

Enough people here have been to the US, including myself. I like visiting the place but I don't want Australia to become like it. Evertime someone advocates change it always sounds very similar to how something is done in the US. And when you point out that it is not all good in the US, we are told we won't make the same mistakes. We will learn from them. Surprise, suprise when changes are made they are almost identical to the US.

Now with Work No Choices and changes to Medicare (slowly going the US model) and various other things happening we soon will be identical to the US and I don't think that is a good thing. You only have to talk to someone (in the US) who is in an average type of job (semi skilled) to find out what the reality is for them, and it is not good.

We have a chance to slow this down come the next election. If anyone at QF votes for JH they must have rocks in there head. If Dixon loves everything that comes out of JH's mouth, then that is not good for my future.

Sorry for the rant, this is just how I see things.

mostie

19th Aug 2006, 08:00

Don't appologise Rammel for how you feel.
Talk to family and friends so that others can be educated.
What we are witnessing is a fundamental shift in Australian society from one which had a degree of egalitarianism and fairness to one that is something else.

As you say quite rightly it is modelled on the American system.
I for one have spent enough time travelling on the local downtown LA buses to know that I do not want our country to be a part of their system.

A system that sees an underclass of people working mutiple jobs for next to nothing just in order to survive.

There is a term for these people and it is called the "working poor".
Australian society has up until recently been prepared to legislate minimum wages AND CONDITIONS that have afforded everyone who can work some dignity and quality of life.

John Howard wants away with is for ideological reasons.

He boasts of delivering economic prosperity the like of which we have never seen but at the same time his "work no choices" legislation will see ever increasing numbers of people [young, semi skilled, unskilled] unable to benefit from this prosperity.

It stinks and I desperately hope that Australians of all socio economic groups wake up.

Who is going to pay for the social needs of people unable to get ahead in life because they work for next to nothing just to survive??

Nobody.

Australia is about to become John Howard's new America.

WAKE UP

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

I was reading an article in one of our broadsheets recently about these very issues.

Whoever it was was saying that traditionally Australian's have accepted that unless a business can afford to pay a proper living wage then it doesn't deserve to operate or survive.

He pointed out that John Howard is determined to see that this is no longer the case.

cartexchange

19th Aug 2006, 12:28

hmmmmm what is he looking at?http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5217868,00.jpg

ozskipper

19th Aug 2006, 14:52

I see a bat in the cave .... (that means there's a booger in his nose for the uneducated!)

rammel

20th Aug 2006, 01:10

What I don't get, is the way the business news outlets portray him as some sort of tough guy. Personally I think he is weak as they come. He won't address staff/sections personally about decisions he is making that will change their lives. Whatever you think of James, he had the balls to tell you directly that he was going to screw you.

Wed Webbing Woop

20th Aug 2006, 03:47

Talking to a professional govt ( Canberra) lobbyist the other day....he became quite"lucid" after a few glasses of Chardy on board!!!!
We discussed the latest machinations going on at Qantas and he then made the following revelation:
"There is no way in the world that Dixon will introduce any AWA's until AFTER the next Federal election in 2007. Howard has demanded this from Dixon. The trade off for this "delay" will be keeping EK and SQ out of the Aussie market until at least AFTER the next election. For Dixon to steam- roll AWA's acrosss the QF workforce would certainly smash Howards chances of re-election .....Howard is an accute strategist, to screw the Roo would screw his chance of becoming the longest ever serving Australian PM ( formerly Menzies.). Howard is into History and "stats". This is is moment he has lived for all his life".
Lets see if this becomes a reality.
Regardless it won't change my vote:
JOHNNY ........................YOU'RE H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.!!!!!
www

argus.moon

20th Aug 2006, 05:28

Maybe Dixon doesnt think Dishonest John will win and is getting in early?!

surfside6

20th Aug 2006, 05:35

You would have to be a complete managerial idiot, if you were head of HR, and not realise that staff morale is low and that the majority of employees are disengaged.
So why have "engagement sutrveys"?
These surveys allow management to target those areas that are more change resistant,more disengaged,more intractable than others.
Why else would you spend large amounts of money to determine what you should already know?
Unless of course you are a complete managerial idiot.
Gee sounds a lot like KB.:sad: :sad:

OCCR

21st Aug 2006, 04:34

looks like we have been lied to by the FAAA again! or rather that a spin has been put on the UNICEF standown....my sources tell me that it wasn't like the FAAA reported.
It wasn't the case of putting an envelope in your pocket at all.........looks like the FAAA have learned to spin the truth just like the visitors.....what a shame that we are surrounded by lies on all sides.

radiation junkie

21st Aug 2006, 05:03

So, what have your sources told you ? We are all waiting for your reply !

Sunfish

21st Aug 2006, 05:12

Surfside. The reason the HR practices are so poor, in my humble opinion, is that a considerable number of senior managers and Board members have a very high narcissistic component in their personalities, perhaps even to the point of narcissistic personality disorder. I've run across one of these people in business life and also one in private life.

These people have got to where they are by managing "Up' extremely well. They are often very highly talented, highly intelligent and work very very hard, but also go out of their way to impress their superiors.

If you have one of these creatures as a colleague, expect a regular knife in the back.

If you have the misfortune to work for one, leave if possible. To these people, you are an unmentionable thing little better than a dog - to be dispensed with as and when it suits them.

These people cannot empathise with others on any level at all and they have a massive sense of entitlement. Thats why they can shower themselves in perks and pay rises while grinding the faces of their workers into the dirt

The classic example was telling the kids at Tulla that their facility was "under review" and leave them stewing for months while the nobility decides their fate.

(Note to self; Find a copy of the Internationale and play it while writing this drivel)