QANTAS - Australia IV [Archive] - Page 2

lowerlobe

18th Feb 2007, 19:09

Midnight/Stubby…etc…

If ever there was proof of the saying “You get what you pay for”…This is it…The sad part of the whole thing apart from the woman in question is that I bet bookings for QF would have gone up as a result of all this with some desperate types dreaming of someone dragging them into the toilet on a flight.

I don’t know what her dad was talking about though because after looking at her pic you can only blame alcohol/jetlag/altitude or maybe the cabin was dark and the light in the toilet wasn’t working….

I noticed that the Brit paper was talking about medication so that will be dragged into her argument…Anyway……

Twiggs/Company spokesperson…,

Quote… “Anyway, lobe and wolf, did you stop to think that there may be a commercial reason for this change?

Maybe there is been a large booking on those dates warranting the increase in capacity?”

Twiggs did you read my post or did you just go off half cocked as usual just to start an argument.I said that the 300 was antiquated and should be in a museum and that the Japanese like the latest in everything.

Then you come back with another pearl….A need for increase in capacity…..

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A 747-400 ????????????????????

This is up there with It’s the destination not the….

And No one can claim to represent the majority..only me…

B A Lert

18th Feb 2007, 21:25

Then you come back with another pearl….A need for increase in capacity…..
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A 747-400 ????????????????????

Have you thought (something new for Lowerlobe) that the 744 fleet is fully committed without the spare time to do a couple of Naritas? For example, a 744 could operate a return LAX in the same time as a scheduled Narita. What does the Company do, ditch a Pacific service for Tokyo?

Pegasus747

18th Feb 2007, 21:37

Agree or we outsource 1700 jobs, Air NZ warns unions
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 16, 2007

THE outlook for 1700 Air New Zealand workers remained grim yesterday after the airline again warned it would outsource their jobs unless all unions representing them agreed to concessions.
The Kiwi carrier has been at loggerheads with the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union over threats to outsource airport services to Spanish company Swissport.
The unions have been told the 1675 customer service and loading staff will be outsourced to Swissport, at a saving of $NZ20 million ($17.5 million) a year, unless workers agree to significant changes to their terms and conditions.

The parties have so far been unable to broker an agreement that would allow the work at Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch airports to remain in-house. The airline said yesterday that discussions with the EPMU were continuing but the SFWU had said it would not pursue talks.

Air NZ group general manager, people, Vanessa Stoddart said yesterday that unless the membership of all unions ratified a common solution the outsourcing would proceed.

"The conflicting union positions create a difficult situation," she said.

"One union may get support from its members for a satisfactory in-house solution, while the other doesn't support it.

"Naturally we can't have one group of Air New Zealanders on incompatible terms and conditions to the others, so we would be left with no option but to outsource."

Air NZ's ground handling staff are covered by collective agreements that are in force until June 30 but the airline has been pressuring unions since last May to make concessions. The airline denies that the move to outsourcing will lead to a drop in skill levels and says Swissport is committed to taking as many Air New Zealand staff as possible into its workforce.

But the SFWU said a recent survey of members at Auckland International Airport showed that more than half would not transfer to Swissport if outsourcing proceeded.

"This is because they are not prepared to work at all hours of the night and weekends without penalty rates and on a lower hourly rate," union official Jill Ovens said.

Ms Stoddart said outsourcing airport ground handling services was nothing new for Air New Zealand.

"We outsource the work at many of our regional New Zealand airports, at all our Australian airports and at other key offshore locations such as Los Angeles and London," she said.

lowerlobe

18th Feb 2007, 22:45

If it’s not Twiggs it’s BA and I don’t know which is morer wronger…ehh BA:E

A couple of points BA a classic has not got the same range as a 400.

The distance from SYD to NRT is less than SYD to LAX and therefore IF you think about it a 400 could not do a LAX return in the same time as it does a NRT return…What were you saying about THINKING BA?

The possibility about taking aircraft off the LAX run was never mentioned by me …only you BA.I think you should stick to paper shuffling in the office.

My point before Twiggs went south with it was that the Japanese market is supposedly important and we keep shafting it.Perhaps if the company was not playing games with our latest aircraft and giving them to other carriers we could use them in a far more efficient manner and not be forced to play catch up.

Even you BA might have read the articles on the weekend about QF putting pax on J* services when they have paid for a QF seat.They continually show a level of disdain for the customer that beggars belief.

The 300 is a relic and that is my point and as we need more aircraft we shouldn’t be giving them away to other carriers.This puts us in a position where we are forced to use aircraft that should be in Longreach.

Pegasus747

18th Feb 2007, 23:25

Midnight,

The difference between Australian and British LAw is that after a ballot striking is legal in th UK. And any damages sustained by the airline are the leverage that the union has.

In Australian industrial action including strikes is illegal and not only can the union be sued for the damages but individual flight attendants that participate in any action.

I dont know about you Midnight but i dont fancy losing my home and i dont think any other flight attendant wants to be bankrupted by Qantas either.

If Qantas workers could take industrial action legally i would imagine that the engineers and pilots and ASU that just lost a lot of IT workers to India would be taking action now too.
.
Most of the Long HAul crew that not only talk the talk but are prepared to walk the walk ( in terms of Industrial Action) have taken packages over the last 3-4 years.

The old guard that have some fire in the belly are no longer with us. Industrial action has a place but only when negitiating an EBA and now after secret ballots have taken place.

The process would take months and qantas would be well equipped to deal with it.

I yearn for the days when we could say if something isnt fixed by 6pm we are going to stop the Narita flight.

Pegasus747

19th Feb 2007, 04:10

Midnight the reality is that the howard goverment is doing its best to neuter the union movement in the country by severly restricting the ways that they can operate.

Every day the unions are able to act on behalf of their members and enforce agreements and stop the company acting unilaterally.

For example reaching a compromise on the FRA allowance issue. Without the unions not just FAAA there would be nowhere at all to turn.

I am reliably informed that there are currently 6 crew held out of service facing termination for various infractions. without the FAAA defending its members the company would turn that into 50 in the blink of an eye.

Without someone standing up even in a reduced capacity because of the law and the environment then I am afraid there would be nothing stopping Qantas Management.

missleadfoot

19th Feb 2007, 05:28

I don't agree regarding services to Japan. JAL have their own off shoot, JAA, or better known from the sides of their plane as "Resor Cha", they are painted with flowers all over the side and tail. I was in Brisbane recently and there were 2 747-200's parked there and in Sydney I have seen a 200 and a 300. I have never seen a "Resor Cha" 400. These aircraft are operated by JAL with Thai cabin crew and fly to holiday destinations around the world. Japanese know what they are getting, they know what they are paying for, they know JAA is an off shoot of JAL. If the price is right they will fly. JAA is a subsiduary of JAL. Japanese will fly with low cost carriers. Maybe not all but there is a market.

B A Lert

19th Feb 2007, 07:04

The 300 is a relic and that is my point and as we need more aircraft we shouldn’t be giving them away to other carriers.This puts us in a position where we are forced to use aircraft that should be in Longreach.

If Lowerlobe has been around for as long as he claims, he too is a relic. He should retire to Longreach with the other relics where he will be so much at home.

The possibility about taking aircraft off the LAX run was never mentioned by me

For once, Lowerlobe is right but....this idea was mentioned as a 'for example'. I repeat, from where does Qantas get the 744s to fly to Tokyo as has been suggested instead of 743's?

The distance from SYD to NRT is less than SYD to LAX and therefore IF you think about it a 400 could not do a LAX return in the same time as it does a NRT return

Again, he is right but.....is he aware that aircraft patterns on QF21 and QF22 flights are very inefficient? These aircraft operate Sydney/Tokyo overnight, sit all day on the ground in Tokyo and then operate overnight Tokyo/Sydney. Utilisation is very low. In this time, the same aeroplane could operate a round trip to LA and make a lot more money.

There's more to shuffling paper than there is to chucking food and trundling trollies. It really is time that Lowerlobe stuck to the very very limited, narrow field in which he may be "expert".

Bad Adventures

19th Feb 2007, 09:26

BA Lert

‘These aircraft operate Sydney/Tokyo overnight, sit all day on the ground in Tokyo and then operate overnight Tokyo/Sydney. Utilisation is very low.’

Most of the aircraft that fly to LA also spend all day on the ground before returning to Australia. The staggering ignorance in your posts is amusing if not now tiresome.

Shlonghaul

19th Feb 2007, 09:28

Have been away for a few days and just read Lowerlobes radio interview ...........absolute classic mate :D :D :D :D You've missed your calling as a comedian but I see it just went over the top of some of the heads on here and is still heading south. PS. pm me mate my mum has a great muffin recipe!!

Some buffoon here wrote that the last JFKs that they'd done were a walk in the park. No fifteen hour plus day is a walk in the park whether it be full or :mad: half full. Unless of course you're one of the increasing number of young bludgers not pulling their weight onboard because they were out partying the night before or just plain slacking off.

IFE......still a bloody disaster. Will have to get my trousers repaired as I spent a great deal of time on my knees fiddling under the seats doing a hard reset. No filthy remarks thanks :E Yes I know QF management it's just a teething problem.

743s on the NRTs.......have seen that the 707 is back at Mascot apparently it's a back up in case the 743s fall over which is liable to happen or maybe to replace the Flying Junior Croissant which also seem to have recent maintenance problems. Oh well nothing a good banana muffin can't fix.

Any truth in the rumour that Ms. Robertson has been employed by Virgin? :E

smokey2

20th Feb 2007, 05:18

The tart also is an ex NSW copper. Sounds like she has alot in common with Kim Hollingsworth. Both nutters. May be they can set a knocking shop up together. Pity about the damage to everyone else in the airline industry. Ashamed to be Australian

mamslave

20th Feb 2007, 05:24

what damage has been done?

i dont think this issue should make you feel ashamed to be an aussie, there are a lot worse things that have been done. Things our government has done etc etc

i wish crew would stop talking about it, who cares. Its her business.

And the people that are turning this issue around, and into their issue! oh please grow up!

priapism

20th Feb 2007, 09:15

Mamslave - "It's her business" --you have got to be joking!!!! Her actions and public spruiking of them for cash has demeaned and belittled the job of Flight Attendents everywhere
My female friends with Q.F are absolutely cringing at every steroetyped barb and response in the press and from the punters lately after this airhead's escapades.
Once she took it public it no longer was her business and she deserves all the negative responses on this forum she gets.
And believe me , being an ex copper in no way enhances her credibility at all. I know a few of ex coppers who are now the most dysfunctional people I know.
There is plenty NQR about Lisa.

GPS72

20th Feb 2007, 20:25

$91m in payouts to 'old' Qantas executives
Stuart Washington
February 21, 2007
QANTAS executives will receive a $91 million payout, including $8 million for chief executive Geoff Dixon on their last day of employment with the "old" airline if the takeover goes ahead.
And they will get the payout, for shares worth millions of dollars, even when they have not met all the performance hurdles.
The payouts are on top of lucrative cash and share incentives they will get from the would-be owners of the "new" Qantas, including bonuses of up to 200 per cent of their cash salaries, a stake in the new company of up to 4.5 per cent, and a performance fee for Mr Dixon as high as $60 million.
The executives will get a golden handshake on their way out one day; the next day, working in the same roles, they will be richly rewarded on their way in.
But there could be a hitch. The generous payments will go ahead only if the $11.1 billion private equity bid by the Airline Partners Australia consortium succeeds.
There is growing uncertainty about the deal among federal MPs and financial markets. Prospects of a takeover have also been thrown into doubt by reluctant fund managers who are considering whether to reject the offer.
The payment to executives occurs because of "change of ownership" provisions in the managers' existing contracts, and the necessity for new owners to acquire all the outstanding shares of the company. But in a little-advertised fact about takeovers, managers' options for shares are being paid out in full, even when they have not met their performance hurdles.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
GPS72

sydney s/h

20th Feb 2007, 20:57

rumour # 268192085

Shorthaul crew will be trained on the 747-300 by the end of 2007.

Apparently the cap of amount of aircraft you can be EP's certified on can be more than 3.

Just heard it through the grapevine.... the grape was growing on a CASA inspector tree.......

Pegasus747

20th Feb 2007, 23:26

Date: Thursday, 15 February 2007
Thomas Hunter writes:

If Qantas stewardess Lisa Robertson thought interest in her encounter with actor Ralph Fiennes was waning, she’s in for a surprise when she picks up today’s Daily Telegraph - it carries her photo and comments from her father in the presumptuously-titled “Ralph’s Mile High Hostie”.

“Lisa just does her job and if someone wants a cup of coffee and biscuits, she looks after them,” Dad told the Tele. “She's not a bad-looking girl. If you do the right thing people take a liking to you.”

Despite the same newspaper publishing a statement in which Robertson claimed she was innocent of any amorous wrong-doing, the Tele’s coverage wink-winks and nudge-nudges at the salacious undertones of the story. It also completely fails to raise the issue of Robertson's treatment by Qantas and her employer – fair, unfair, or otherwise.

Barely had the wheels touched back down in Australia before Robertson was stood down without pay pending the outcome of an investigation. According to the Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia (FAAA), strict procedures are in place to handle such incidents. It appears those guidelines have been adhered to.

But while the rules might have been followed, Robertson’s case raises questions about the balance of power in employee-employer relations in Australia, fairness of treatment at work, and more basically, the presumption of innocence.

Robertson is employed by Morris Alexander Management (MAM), a recruitment company specialising in airline industry staff. Despite her pay cheque coming from MAM, Robertson was recruited and trained by Qantas to their standards and for their planes, yet the company will only employ her on a casual basis.

A spokesman from the FAAA told Crikey that approximately one third of the Qantas workforce is casual, an arrangement which confers significant benefits on the airline. Casual staff receive no long service leave from the airline, they have no entitlement to the Qantas superannuation scheme or sick leave. Further, Qantas’s casual staff operate under a significantly lower wage structure which isn’t indexed over years of service as it is for full-time Qantas staff. (Qantas was contacted for comment but didn't respond prior to publication.)

Those conditions are not unique to Qantas or the airline industry: they’re a reality for most casual employees. But as the FAAA points out, if Robertson was a Qantas employee, there would be a greater financial imperative to resolve the issue quickly. That urgency doesn’t exist with casual staff, with many resorting to Centrelink payments during periods of unemployment. The FAAA also says this case illustrates why Qantas is eager to base full-time staff in countries like Thailand where the labour laws are more generous to employers.

While this arm’s length employment arrangement contravenes no laws, Robertson's case raises other questions, especially with the private equiteers circling the tower waiting for approval to land.

With the profit motive poised to hit the booster rockets, how real is the threat posed to Qantas's Australian workforce by cheaper, easier-to-manage overseas and casual staff? And do the current labour laws give casual workers enough protection in the case of, say, an unwanted mid-flight moment with a Hollywood heart throb?

surfside6

21st Feb 2007, 00:20

You are welome to it sydney s/haul.
The aircraft is absolute crappe.
It breaks down frequently...the galleys are a fright and stowage is minimal.
It holds almost 400 y/c pax...which aint pretty.
Good Riddance.

YONLY

21st Feb 2007, 01:27

You may dislike working on the 743 but be careful what you wish for....

samford

21st Feb 2007, 03:19

This rumour has surfaced in the past. Maybe one day it will happen, I'd be surpised if it was this year..... however thats only my opinion.

What bothers me about this happening is that if S/H are trained on the 743, then they would more than likely (eventually) end up on the 744...... eeeeek!

roamingwolf

21st Feb 2007, 05:00

Boys and Girls

Whatever happens happens.I reckon the company changes it's mind more than I've had hot meals.The union tells us something after the penny has dropped and one hand of the company does not have a clue what the other is going up to as well.So have another beer or more and who cares cos I'm not going to have a heart attack because of what might bloody happen.

It's time to go fishin again or maybe another beer or both

stubby jumbo

21st Feb 2007, 10:03

Hey Roam'in .....go back and read post #208.....

You appear to be yet another conscript for THE DETACHED INDIFFERENCE regiment.

The numbers are growing.

The Tide is a change'n.

Now all we need is a 90% vote for a YES ( to DETACHED INDIFFERENCE) and we collect $98m....easeee peeeezie:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And5678

21st Feb 2007, 12:12

As fascinating as the current conversation is, I thought I might try to discuss a rumour surfacing. The last time I asked this one I got growled at, but here we go again....

How secure is the future of MEL LH Base? I ask this question based on the following 3 observations.

Firstly, no manager appointed for MEL LH in the recent swapping of deck chairs in the management transit lounge.

Secondly, with the recent publication of pattern books for BP 250, flying for CFA's reduced by over 70%.

Thirdly, allocations have offered a significant number of tempoary base transfers to SYD for MEL crew across CFA and AC categories. This, after only a few months ago trying to encourage (...or con), people to transfer to MEL.

So, is this PER LH all over again? Does it fit in with future plans for AO crew? If anything, it's odd to say the least. Any thoughts?

roamingwolf

21st Feb 2007, 19:06

Hey Stubby,
Mate your right and what breaks me up is the visitors who pretend to be interested in talking to you when your around the sign on area.I reckon they look like they are looking straight through you instead of too you.You tell them about something that should be looked at like the IFE and their eyes go glazy and the fake caring smile surfaces and they tell you they'll look into it.

You know that as soon as you have left they forget about it but then when you get back from a trip and the only thing on your mind is a shower and a kip they want to talk to you about some absolute rubbish.I feel like saying look pal you didn't want to talk to me the other day so I don't want to "chat with you know".

I should ask so mate what have you done about the IFE and when they say..."errr we're looking into it" you tell him "err I'll look into it " and then just walk off .

THE YEAR OF INDIFFERENCE.

Maybe I'll get a t-shirt with "I'M DISENGAGED" on the back

twiggs

21st Feb 2007, 23:57

And5678,
the difference between PER and MEL is the 744 flying, which will continue out of MEL at least till the A380 arrives.
Whether the base stays depends on who will do the 744 flying, eg Aust base or AKL.
All the talk I've heard is the A380's first route will be MEL-LAX-MEL, so that could imply that the base will be needed in the future.
Maybe the dedicated crew that are chosen for the A380 will be required to move to MEL initially?

roamingwolf

22nd Feb 2007, 02:04

Boys and Girls
If you look at the visitors wandering around qcc you will understand that the company does not know what it is going to do tomorro morning let alone in 2 years time so how would crew or anyone else?

between now and when or if we get the 380 anything could happen so who cares.There have always been crew who know what is going to happen so dont listen too much it only gives you a headache.i reckon If something does then well find out about it then.in the meantime chill out and have fun.

And5678

22nd Feb 2007, 03:46

Hey Twiggs!

Thanks for your response. Logic would say that a base is needed in MEL to maintain 747 and future A380 flying. However, the 3 points I raised earlier show a certain antipathy to the base's future by the company.

The actual services departing MEL are still operating, it's just that from next bid period, over 70% of them will NOT be crewed by MEL base. So what will MEL based crew be doing next BP?

twiggs

22nd Feb 2007, 04:34

And5678,
I would say it is just a case of evening up the numbers in the short term until the LHR based crew come back.

And5678

22nd Feb 2007, 05:15

Twiggs, are you serious? Evening up of numbers! A 70% reduction in flying for CFA's alone goes a whole lot more than evening up.

No LH manager appointed for MEL base, a massive reduction in flying, and a significant number of MEL base crew offered tempoary transfers to SYD... something smells rotten to me!

Is the writing on the wall for MEL LH Base?

roamingwolf

22nd Feb 2007, 05:29

And5678

Mate,I wouldn't worry about some of the things that are said here.You gotta remember that some that post here are quite happy to push the company wheelbarrow.Mate I don't know if they are crew or not and that means I'd take her words with a grain of salt.

The bottom line is the clause that the suits in the company inserted into the contract if you went to another base.That said that if the company closed the base for any reason they did not have to give you your same job in the same spot.Mate you could go to Darwin as a porter or ground staff.

Thats what i reckon stinks.The transfer is supposed to be good for both of you but when the manure hits the turbine they will drop you like a hot rock.

midsection

22nd Feb 2007, 05:40

I passed this site web address onto a hand full of my non aviation friends and asked them to have a read and tell me what you think. All of them made the comment that some on here wouldnt know if they had a great job with excellent conditions if it smacked them in the a#%e.
We have 1 of the better jobs around, pays well for what we do so if you dont like it get a 9 - 5 job.
I cant believe some of you on here. Sorry, yes I can as I put up with you winging lot for hours at a time on board.
Bring on some new faces please.:{:yuk::yuk:

twiggs

22nd Feb 2007, 05:47

And5678,
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
RoamingWolf is probably a CCM.

And5678

22nd Feb 2007, 08:12

Roamingwolf, you make reference to a clause in our contract that gives the company the ability to transfer us to any position in any location. Is that assumption based on your own legal analysis or on an actual precedence that has been set in the past?

Twiggs, if RW was a CCM, I'd call my health insurer on seeing them approach to make sure I'm paid up, then throw myself under an approaching crew bus!

;)

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but can anyone explain the 70% reduction in flying out of MEL LH Base?

stubby jumbo

22nd Feb 2007, 09:08

WE read yesterday that ,QANTAS SENIOR exec's will receive a $91 million payout, including $8 million for Darth, on their last day of employment with the "old"/legacy ( don't you just love that term) airline if the takeover goes ahead.

The payout occurs before any Qantas exec managers do one day of work for the new owners.

The payments for Qantas senior managers are in stark contrast to the ACTU concerns about the future of Qantas workers, who are not eligible for such handsome kick backs as Qantas leaves public ownership.

"Workers haven't kept pace with the consumer price index," says the
Australian Services Union's assistant national secretary, Linda White.

OK, well get ready for this bomb shell that was dropped in our laps at the SIN crew forums this week:

"There will be no more wage increases attached to the L/H EBA UNTIL there is parity/equality of pay with the O/S Bases."-Tarantula.

So in other words it will be a "vanilla EBA" with no 3% ( or whatever) over 3 years.

How long will it take to "catch up" with the Thai Base????????????

This means with a CPI running at 1.5-2% , we'll be effectively taking a PAY CUT of 1.5-2% per annum until we "catch up"!!!

WHAT THA !!!!!!!:{ :{ :yuk:

Was any one else up there ?

what did you hear?

roamingwolf

22nd Feb 2007, 09:23

And5678,

Mate ,when the perth base closed one of the crew there was given 3 options.

1 take VR

2 If he wanted to stay L/H he had to go to Mel even though he was Syd based before the move to Perth.All his and his wifes family were in Syd but they would not give him that option .

3 Transfer to S/H and stay in Perth which is kinda funny now that s/h do a lot of the flying we used to do.

As far as my job goes,have a look at some of my posts and tell me if you reckon I would be a visitor.mate apart from that I have a problem with the BS in there and it's so deep you need a snorkel to breath .

It's funny but I did not mention Twiggs name but she had a shot at me...which is typical and if you look at her posts you will understand why a few here are doubtfull about her being crew.

Mate as far as the 70 % goes who knows except those in the office and even then I don't reckon they have a clue.it might be some foul up caused by carmen but since you can't do anything about it then chill out.

Hey midsection so you told your non avaition mates about this site and they reckon we don't know how good we have it.

How then mate if they don't fly then how do they know what our job is like and how good it is? If they think their jobs suck then maybe they should have a career change.If they reckon they can judge something without ever doing them and having no idea of what goes on at all and they reckon they can tell others what to do then I suggest they try a job with QF management.

I was thinking mate since you are akl crew are you one of the original strikebreakers who moved across the pond because they couldn't get a job in OZ.The reason I reckon this is because you must have a short term memory problem because you said this in the thread about bringing Ansett back

"Count me in any day. Better than the s#@t we put up with at the moment"

You also had a shot at our IFE which we all did but then told us that jfk shuttles were a walk in the park.

...WTF ..mate make up your mind or are you taking out the quinella pal

roamingwolf

22nd Feb 2007, 19:09

Hey Stubby

Did anyone tell the tarantula that unlike OS bases we live in OZ and the cost of living is a lot $#%^$@* higher than bkk.Maybe the managers who think of this should live in syd on Thai pay.

mate the other problem we have is the union has told everyone that we are paid more than anyone else .That makes it a cert that the company will give us nothing and and to take away a lot.

Eden99

24th Feb 2007, 02:43

I agree roamingwolf, how dare the FAAA!!! tell long haul cabin crew and the Company what LH crew are paid!!!
I think it's an outrage, because Qantas (the employer who pays LH crew) did not know what it was paying its LH crew, until the nasty FAAA let the cat out of the bag!!!
Until the FAAA had the gall to have a mature debate with it's members about the reasons why the Company was VR' ing the LH Division out of existence, senior Qantas management were in the dark about the conditions and pay that they were extending to their LH crew.
roamingwolf you are so analytical and cluey that i think you should run the FAAA and then you can keep from the Company what it pays all of us!!!!
YAY FOR roamingwolf.

roamingwolf

24th Feb 2007, 04:25

Eden

Mate you really have no idea of what i was saying do you .I hope that everyone is wrong and you are not on the union because you are over your head.

I did not say that the company does not know what we are paid I said you are admitting that YOU think we are overpaid for the work we do.

If you play cards do you show the others what cards you have?

Go on genius tell the company that we are overpaid.Let the opposition know what you are thinking before you go into negotiations and i reckon we all know what will happen genius:8

Pegasus747

24th Feb 2007, 07:06

RW, i dont think that the FAAA has ever even marginally indicated that LH crew are "overpaid".

But they have clearly indicated in what was needed as a reality check for some crew that we are the least productive and most expensive.

Just as a mercedes is more expensive than a holden. The difference is, that in our case, the company view is that a jetstar flight attendant or an overseas based flight attendant or a MAM casual does exactly the same job for a lot less.

We like to view ourselves as the mercedes benz of cabin crew. Many of us are and deserve what we earn. Trouble is the company just has choices now that they didnt have a number of years ago.

The FAAA have just been putting a perspective on our situation. Nobody likes our predicament but it wont be solved by living in denial of reality.

Cleary the cost differential is a significant motivating factor for Qantas. Its the only reason that the IT jobs were sent to India and the maintenance is being done offshore.

Unlike the IT workers and engineers cabin crew do not in any reality have a portable skill no matter how well WE regard ourselves and that is the incredible challenge for flight attendants and their representatives.

With a hostile govt an IR laws, a largely industrially weak membership (certainly F/a's could not be described as militant) our challenge in the next EBA is to avoid oblivion and to remain relevant and EMPLOYED.

For some the changes will be bearable for others not bearable. With people lining up to do our work cheaper and without legislative protection that unions have traditionally enjoyed in australia, flight attendants as well as all other unskilled workers face serious challenges.

ANd please before anyone gets offended when i refer to flight attendants as unskilled i do so in the spirit that we can be replaced by a week of EP training and some cabin service training.

Its all about profit, and what qantas can con the public into believing is a quality product.

What i find totally offensive is the obscene bonuses paid to management and offered by the equity partners. The current management are not deserving of those obscene amounts. Its not them that built our company is thousand of didicated staff over decades.

When we have a govt that not only endorses this sort of behaviour but encourages it its time for a change.

For my money RUDD like obi wan kenobi is our only hope.

twiggs

24th Feb 2007, 11:58

And5678,
log onto CIS and you will have your answers.
Looks like things will be back to normal from BP 251.

qcc2

24th Feb 2007, 21:49

will continue to be allocated LSL like other bases until its down to zero. another way to balance excess crew:ugh:

stubby jumbo

25th Feb 2007, 00:00

Hey Pegasus,

You are the ONLY one from the FAAA bunker that makes any sense when you post.

Guardian 1.......too emotive,arrogant and not rational, Eden 99=sarcasm and arrogance.......this never works.

So you're way out infront.

There are times when I do not agree with the FAAA "muffin led assault", but hey...... you are giving me hope that there is an alternative ,articulate and objective view for our future.

Well Done:ok:

And5678

25th Feb 2007, 03:50

Hey mate...

I couldn't agree more with your post and Stubby's assessment of it. It address' our situation with reality and common sense. Most crew, in my opinion, would agree too.

My only concern with your post is the tendancy for people to view a Rudd/ALP win as a panacea to our industrial issues. They will face a hostile senate most probably still controlled by conservative forces. Forces that will be in one foul mood and in no way willing to negotiate.

roamingwolf

25th Feb 2007, 09:12

Pegasus

Mate I reckon most here believe that the three amigos are the faaa officials.I don’t give a stuff really but here is a post by guardian about l/h pay.

“Qantas Long Haul crew are :

1)paid on average 20% more on their hourly rates , just to start with

2) Qantas LH crew are paid for 182.3 per 8 weeks.... SH are paid their lower rates of pay on the basis of 246 hours per 8 weeks

3) SH allowances in terms of overseas and domestic meal allowances are massively lower than L/H

4) SH EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF MAM CASUALS, AGAIN MASSIVELY CHEAPER THAN LONG HAUL CREW.”

This might be the case or it might not but to publish this on a public forum for all to see lets the cat out the bag don’t you reckon

gloriais18

25th Feb 2007, 11:19

I wonder if I may make a few comments re Mr Wolf's post (actually an answer to Mr Guardian if he is quoted correctly).

A check of LH vs SH CSM basic salary shows that a LH CSM earns 3.95% more than the SH equivalent. (I have 2 pay slips in front of me right now)

Historically tech crew salaries were determined on a weight /speed formula ie. bigger faster more remuneration, or a weight/payload formula, either way it's called productivity. Applying that principle less than a 4% difference in basic salary between flying a B737 vs a B747 would suggest that LH CC are somewhat under paid.

As for points 2-4 might I suggest, not quite factually correct.

To quote an IR Manager "LH aren't more expensive they are just less flexible"

And in reply to comments made else where DTA IS TAXABLE. for those who wish to disagree, look at the SH payslip, and visit the ATO web site.....

Happy to further discuss these issues but will not respond to who hates whom more, nor the anti Union chant.

sydney s/h

25th Feb 2007, 21:01

"LH aren't more expensive they are just less flexible"

Here's an example. The flight was delayed out of Melbourne to Narita a few weeks ago - an A330-300.

The LH crew weren't going to achieve their required rest break (just short) in NRT.

They try and negotiate with the LH crew. They say nope.

Phone calls are made to SH crew on home reserve. Paxed up to NRT, day rest and bring back the aircraft.

2 things here -

1. you have to be flexible sometimes to help yourselves in the long term
2. Before you bag the SH crew - The SH crew had no choice. They were on home reserve, they had to legally answer their phone and were within hours to operate.

And there you go. Before you know it SH are now doing NRT flights as of March. Big hour 6 day trips. And very popular.

lowerlobe

25th Feb 2007, 21:14

Monday February 26, 07:03 AM

Jetstar breaking laws: Qantas pilots

Qantas pilots will ask the Federal Court to rule that the airline's subsidiary Jetstar is operating illegally.

The Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) will argue that Jetstar's international services breach a section of the Qantas Sale Act which prevents the national carrier operating international passenger services under another name, News Ltd newspapers report.

The union says the act requires Qantas to conduct scheduled international passenger services under the Qantas name or one that contains the word Qantas.

The union is worried that Qantas could transfer its business to the subsidiary.

"We contend there is an exit strategy to spin Jetstar off," AIPA President Ian Woods said.

I find it interesting that the FAAA is saying that the sky is falling etc...but here is yet another example of the pilots union having a go at the company and trying to defend their members conditions instead of sitting back and saying well guys we know we are X % more expensive than other pilots.

Instead we have our union falling over themselves to do the opposite..

Sydney S/H..Interesting example but I'm curious..How do you know that the company tried to negotiate with the L/H crew.

Where did you get that info from?

sydney s/h

25th Feb 2007, 21:35

Lowerlobe,

i only know as third hand info. I know that in daily life that wouldnt count but on pprune it seems to mean something! ;)

sydney s/h

25th Feb 2007, 21:42

Roamingwolf,

I am really curious as to the statement you made...

"SH allowances in terms of overseas and domestic meal allowances are massively lower than L/H".

You maybe correct. Is any LH'er up for comparing SH to LH allowances for a certain trip?

Let's pick.... a Shanghai trip. I know you dont currently fly there but you used to and probably will again. 4 day trip.

Ok... you sign-on in SYD on day 1 at 1005, arrive in PVG at 2220.

Day 3 you sign-on at 2220 in PVG, arrive day 4 in SYD at 1040.

Can someone advise what kind of allowance you would get in your little envelope at the hotel?

I'll work out our allowance....

roamingwolf

25th Feb 2007, 22:48

sydney s/h
mate I didn't make those figures they were from guardian.

I don't know if they are correct or if guardian was pushing his own idea.

What i'm saying is that we are haering the same softening up speaches from the company and the union.you'd swear it's the same person at times.

But i like this from another thread which i reckon is s/h

I "TRIED" to speak to the FAAA to get info! Was quite curtly told that it wouldn't be appropriate to release content of intentions. But that they were definitely pushing our side of things...I am not impressed with the level of communication from FAAA at all. I and the membership are supposed to be driving the push with the FAAA doing the face to face negotiations. Appears to be going the same way that the Ground Crew EBA did last year! Ground crew were just suddenly told well we've done our best to get you the best deal we can and here it is, we suggest you support it... and that from my then, union!
I just wish things were more "open". Even if I don't like the content, if it is open and transparent to me I will at least feel that I can trust both the union and company management. It would certainly help to squash so much of the galley FM rumour mill.

Eden99

25th Feb 2007, 23:22

the figues quoted by Guardian are correct.... and any material that Guardian posts here is completely correct, because he/she knows what he/she is talking about.

That fact that Guardian knows what he/she is sayting appears to annoy individuals on here..... and the usual predictable response by those anti-union elements in here who continually bag the FAAA , who have little knowledge about anything...is to then tag Guardian as "arrogant" for example.

roamingwolf you really are pretty slow aren't you mate?? Unfortunately, there is no other way to put it. The FAAA or i haven't said we are overpaid in L/H. As my more diplomatic, posting friend Pegasus stated , the FAAA is pointing out why LH will be eliminated by the Company if a reality check doesn't occur, particualarly with individuals like you roamingwolf.

Qantas is not interested whether the FAAA believes L/H crew are "overpaid" or not....that is irrelevant..... Qantas knows that LH are the most expensive by far, that's why 1200 people have been VR'ed in LH since 2001.

Furthemore roamingwolf, whilst i realise you are fairly limited in your capacity, try at least to not misrepresent what i said. I never said we are overpaid.... i said that Qantas knows we are the most expensive. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND I KNOW MOST PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, EXCEPT YOU OBVIOUSLY.

Lowerlobe, you again start with your anti FAAA mantra. Mate, you would not have any idea about the issues that AIPA is raising in conjunction with Jetstar. You also obviously do not know that AIPA failed in a similar manouvre in the Federal Court last year . What you also do not know is what is happenning privately behing the scenes with the FAAA and AIPA and of course this won't be disclosed publicly because it would be harmful to the interests of crew.

Also, remember for example that the pilots negotiating position has led to their allowances being lower than cabin crew. So please refrain from making comments about which is the more effective union, because you simply haven't got a clue.

In summary, roamingwolf and lowerlobe should concentrate on doing cart exchanges rather than criticising actions of others including the FAAA , when they have no clue.

Eden99

25th Feb 2007, 23:42

gloriais18 asserted "A check of LH vs SH CSM basic salary shows that a LH CSM earns 3.95% more than the SH equivalent. (I have 2 pay slips in front of me right now) ".

I take the opportunity to correct this totally wrong assertion.

A SH year 3 CSM earns $1118.98/ week or $58186.96 per year. A LH CSM YEAR 2 earns $74322.53 per year. So a LH CSM earns not 3.95% more than his short haul counterpart, but rather 27.73% more.

Again its a shame that totally inaccurate material is constantly posted in here by individuals who assert it to be gospel and explains why quite often ridiculous statements are made in here by people with no idea.

The 27% more earnt by a LH CSM also highlights my previous post ... it explains why LH crew are being made redundant and being made to use up LONG SERVICE LEAVE. Add in trhe fact that in LH we are paid on the basis of 182.3 hours per 8 weeks as compared to 246 hours for SH and you further realise why the Company is beginning to wipe out LH.

All should realise this and in fact the vast bulk of LH crew do....... all except roamingwolf and lowerlobe..... but of course they are a tiny minority.

roamingwolf

26th Feb 2007, 00:05

Eden

good one mate your a huge help for our side.Why don't you do us a big favor and just join the company .

please tell me that you are not on the faaa negotiating team...PLEASE

I could just laugh at you in a friday night poker game...

cards are dealt...eden.."ok boys I've got a King ,a 4 ,a 6 etc...

the other boys are looking at eden and don't know if they should laugh or cry.:8:8:8:8:8

gloriais18

26th Feb 2007, 01:08

I suppose if one is to have this kind of discussion then one needs to compare like with like.

Mr Eden if you care to reread my post of last evening you will note that I used the term "basic salary" as it appears on the said pay slips. You choose to use the term "earnings"

However I defer to your greater knowledge of such matters.

You appear to indictate that SH is paid 246 hours per 8 weeks. Might I suggest that you refer to section 13 of the SH EBA.

You may note that SH are block built to 123 hours per calendar month.
(2 calendar months equals 8.7 weeks) however that figure does not relate to the formula used to calculate basic earnings.

But nevertheless comparing hours for SH domestic operations verses LH trans meridian flying is not comparing like with like.

Mr Wolf might I concur with your sentiment.

Eden99

26th Feb 2007, 04:47

thanks for deferring to my greater knowledge because you unfortunatewly do not understand how the respective pay systems work in LH and SH.

Comparing "basic pay" omn a LH pay slip is irrelevent because it is the guaranteed hours figure of 149 hours which is part of the pay equalisation system in LH which SH does not have.... in SH you are paid on the basis of 123/hrs per calendar month or 246 hours /2 calendar months..approx 8 weeks , like the L/H roster.

So the figures i quoted are completely correct as i understand both pay systems. It helps to understand both if you are going to make correct comparisons.

Hope that helps you gloriais18. Don't be offended because you did not know what you were talking about.

I compared full annual salary of CSM's in both divisions.... like for like.

CHEERS

As for roamingwolf i understand why you are embarrassed and simply can talk about poker. Mate you stick to your poker games and allow people who understand the complex world of Industrial Relations to do their work.

roamingwolf

26th Feb 2007, 05:21

from eden "thanks for deferring to my greater knowledge"

mate i'm choking with laughter here , your right up there with peter foster

PLEASE tell us that YOU are not on the faaa team PLEASE

twiggs

26th Feb 2007, 05:30

Here's an example. The flight was delayed out of Melbourne to Narita a few weeks ago - an A330-300.
The LH crew weren't going to achieve their required rest break (just short) in NRT.
They try and negotiate with the LH crew. They say nope.
Phone calls are made to SH crew on home reserve. Paxed up to NRT, day rest and bring back the aircraft.
2 things here -
1. you have to be flexible sometimes to help yourselves in the long term
2. Before you bag the SH crew - The SH crew had no choice. They were on home reserve, they had to legally answer their phone and were within hours to operate.
And there you go. Before you know it SH are now doing NRT flights as of March. Big hour 6 day trips. And very popular.
While I agree with you that in L/H we do need to be flexible, this example you have given is not representative of inflexibility, and it did not result in S/H doing Naritas. (S/H is only doing MEL-NRT-MEL and this is only due to the shortage in the MEL L/H base which SYD L/H have been covering)
On occasions like this when there is disruption, operations tend to give the operating crew the option to continue with their original duty, especially when a change to the pattern would extend the days of the duty and thus get the crew home a day late.
In the delay in question, one option presented to the crew was to take minimum rest in Narita and get home as scheduled, and the duty was to be treated as a continuous one (lots of overtime), from sign on in MEL till sign off in SYD.
It was only an option given, not a request, and was probably declined as the crew in question did not consider that amount of rest to warrant the extra money or the fact that they would probably get home a day late.
The S/H crew that were called out, paxed to NRT had 12 hrs off and operated back to SYD, slightly easier than if the L/H crew had operated a delayed service, had less than 12 hrs off, and then operated back to SYD.

Eden99

26th Feb 2007, 06:12

glad i made you laugh roamingwolf :-)

You also make me chuckle each time i read your post. You may have your heart in the right place and i inderstand your sentiment, but trust me you have no idea!!

And i'm not trying to be offensive to you :-)

lowerlobe

26th Feb 2007, 08:45

Twiggs,

Your quote… “In the delay in question, one option PRESENTED to the crew was to take minimum rest in Narita and get home as scheduled, and the duty was to be treated as a continuous one (lots of overtime), from sign on in MEL till sign off in SYD.

IT WAS only an option GIVEN, not a request, and was probably declined as the crew in question did not consider that amount of rest to warrant the extra money or the fact that they would probably get home a day late.

The S/H crew THAT were called out, paxed to NRT had 12 hrs off and operated back to SYD, slightly easier than if the L/H crew had operated a delayed service, had less than 12 hrs off, and then operated back to SYD”

Twigs………Your post seems to be extraordinarily well informed and would certainly indicate a source from within the office.

Not that I am inferring anything and any resemblance OF YOURSELF to an office employee is purely coincidental I’m sure………and you wonder why some people have doubts about you...don't tell me your last cab driver has a next door neighbour who has a brother who works in scheduling
:E :E :E :E :E :E :E

sydney s/h

26th Feb 2007, 09:53

Just to inform you....

SH get blocked to 123hrs/month. We get paid for 140hrs/month.

They call it "creep". It covers a few minutes here and there for the month when we are waiting on wheelchairs to the aircraft, late signing off, etc etc...

Eden99

26th Feb 2007, 21:37

You are completely correct thanks sydney s/h...... when i referred to 123 hours/mth i meant your roster build in S/H.

This of course further demonstrates the point of the disparity of L/H and S/H hours and rates of pay.

What it means is that a L/H crew member is paid roughly 20-30% more than a S/H crew member depending which category you are BUT THE S/H CREW MEMBER IS PAID ON THE BASIS OF 280 HOURS PER 2 CALENDER MONTHS COMPARED TO 182.3 HOURS THAT A L/H CREW MEMBER IS PAID FOR OVER 8 WEEKS . SO A L/H CREW MEMBER CAN WORK UP TO 53% LESS HOURS THAN A S/H CREW MEMBER.

This is why the continual redundancies are being made in L/H and of course there is no secret about these huge productivity gaps between L/H and S/H.

Burying our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist and going into denial mode like roamingwolf suggests will only guarantee the complete destruction of L/H.

It's not a matter of liking the situation... it simply is the situation and must be addressed.

roamingwolf

26th Feb 2007, 22:05

Eden..

Pal,The feeling is mutual.but you as usual stretch what I said.I have never said to ignore facts but just not to PUBLISH them.As usual you bend things for your own purpose

My example of a poker game was too simple for even you but others understand my idea.Mate if you tell the other side they are right then what are you going to bargain with?

I know people in the office look at this and now they are saying the next time we talk to the faaa we know that they agree with us and they are paid more than they need to be.

How about instead of this you start attacking the amount they are paid?

aipa are attacking the company and what are you guys doing....eating muffins

I reckon with you not answering my question it is obvious that the worst case is here and you are on the faaa team.

If you are smart enough to read your own post you have said that we are paid 20 – 30 % more than s/h in otherwords we are overpaid…brilliant strategy

you missed my point about your line ...my greater knowledge...it's your arrogance that is the problem.I have talked to you mate and there is no way this idea of your greater knowledge came across in our talk in fact the complete opposite

Eden99

26th Feb 2007, 23:03

my so called arrogance is not the problem. you label me that because i continually expose the stupidity of your remarks.

me confirming or denying whether i am an elected FAAA official would serve no purpose because this is an anonymous forum and my response to you can not be tested .

You again misrepresent what i have said, and in fact, you continually misrepresent what i have said. I have never said we are overpaid in LH , in fact i dont think we are overpaid.

But again that is not the point!!! and you simply don't get it. Qantas knows it is employing S/H Australian Airlines, Jetstar and overseas based crew at between 30-60% cheaper than us in LH. That is a fact and there is no secret about that.

Attacking executives salaries is something that the FAAA and all other Qantas unions do continually...however that does not dissuade from Qantas moving to get rid of us for cheaper alternatives that it has at its fingertips.

THAT IS THE POINT!

AIPA yesterday in the media stated that they were not against the take over of Qantas as such. What do you say to that?

The FAAA on the other hand is strongly against the takeover.

However, in the end comparing us with pilots is totally irrelevant and again highlights your naivety of industrial matters. LH crew can be replaced in 5 days as the Company demonstrated in 2004..... there are thousands lined up to join Jetstar International.

Rather than continually venting your anger and spleen in here.... what do you actually suggest.... you continually carp in here but never suggest A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

Attacking pay rates of Qantas executives doesn't alter a damn thing..... don't you get that??? THEY DON'T CARE!

Also the federal government has enacted new laws to allow Qantas to destroy conditions...that is not the fault of the FAAA.

You need to wake up to the realities of Australian industrial relations in 2007. The same FAAA and its leadership that you attack in here continually because you are ignorant, is the FAAA that has given LH cabin crew the best conditions and pay in Australia and one of the highest in the world.

So i suggest to you roamingwolf, before you attack others as arrogant, you first start to display some understandiong of these issues and furthermore lets see some practical and viable suggestions from you. Otherwise stick to your cart exchanges mate.. (AN ARROGANT COMMENT I KNOW :) )

roamingwolf

26th Feb 2007, 23:28

Mate

1 You say we are paid between 30 and 60 % more than other QF crew and then you say you are not saying we are overpaid...mate think about that for a second...the company sees your post and then tells you that l/h are overpaid and whats more you agree with them...if you see a beer for 30 - 60 % more than another you are saying the expensive beer is overpriced....If you walk into a holden dealer and say the same car is 30% less in a rockdale dealership you are saying it is 30% overpriced...You don't get it do you mate ....and you are representing us...

You don't walk into the room with the company and say..ok we are paid more compared to others...you have given the game away before they have even scored their first try.mate what can you say to argue your point after that.

2 I don't care or need you mate to tell me who you are.I know

3 Mate i didn't post the bit about the pilots but if you want to mention it AIPA is taking the company to court saying that the operation of Jetstar international is against the qantas act .This protects the pilots jobs..they are doing something about their members conditions not saying..welll we are more expensive than others...damn we have to give in...

4 Pal...You asked for my suggestion and here it is ...be more agressive just as you promised at the St George Rowers club...where has that venom gone?

Don't say in a public forum that we all know the company looks at and say WE ARE PAID MORE THAN OTHER CREW IN THE GROUP FOR THE SAME JOB

If you give a dispensation for something like the jfk shuttle get a tradeoff..IN WRITING not some airy fairy vague we are doing something to be more flexible crap to protect our jobs

attack is the best form of defence not to bend over and say be gentle

tell them that os crew do not have our cost of living and if management want to live on Thai pay in sydney they can.

You like being on the radiio and other interviews so tell them about things like the immoral bonus's that GD and others give themselves.Put the pressure on them mate .make them answer questions for once.

Don't stand up at the meeting and say if I have not scared you today I'm not doing my job...that was bs ..mate your job is not to scare crew but represent us:yuk:

And5678

27th Feb 2007, 00:53

Oh God, here we go again....

Back to the clubhouse for long islands teas while the girls slog it out on centre court!

roamingwolf

27th Feb 2007, 00:58

Mate if the future of our jobs is too much for you then stay in the clubhouse with the other girls.

You were worried about the future of the mel base but don't want to debate the future of our jobs?

the union and i do not see eye to eye but at least we are arguing about something important what do want to see posts about....stocking allowances

twiggs will want to talk with you about your kpi's.

lowerlobe

27th Feb 2007, 01:41

After reading the last few posts I couldn't help myself....

A leaked article from an inside source has shown the negotiating skills of the faaaa( flight attendants against all activity) with representatives of the company.

A bug was hidden in the room and here is what was said…..and none of this ever happened…..

Lusly ….Good morning Mick and Sven

Tarantula…Yes Good morning Mick and Sven…good to see you.

Mick Tijapovic….Good morning Lusley ,Sally.

Sven Reedless…Good morning ladies..would you like a muffin…

Lusley ..Ahhh No thanks..you’ve sent enough around already….well let’s start ….let’s look at hours…

Sven….Ok you win we’ll do more…

Sally….but we have not mentioned a figure yet.

Mick…That’s ok we don’t do enough anyway…

Lusley….Ahhh we are thinking about raising productivity and asking for 215 hours per roster..

Sven….NO…NO…we think 220 hours would be fine..I’ve heard cabin crew in Kazakhstan work up to 300 hours..oops….I mean it’s only a rumour ..I heard it on pprune

Mick…Yes it’s a nice round number too..easy to work with and crew will go for that after we’ve scared them at the next meeting.

Lusley…OK ..if you are happy with that let’s move onto pay…

Mick…Oh we get far too much already..how about a 15 % cut..is that enough….wait No that’s not enough for your bonus’s…how about 20%.

Sally …would your members go for that?

Sven….No problem…they believe whatever we tell them….

Lusley….Just on another issue….the other day as I was leaving on a flight there was a new shop in the terminal and it looked like you Mick behind the counter…

Mick….Oh Yes that’s my new idea…Micks Muffins of Mascot…with the new lcc’s people are busting to buy food before they get on..

Lusley…Ok well let’s talk about allowances…

Sven….I could not agree more..

Lusley…I didn’t say anything about them…

Sven…Ohhh OK well what’s your point

Lusley….Well we want to bring them into line with coffee shop prices in Ethiopia…

Mick….Oh that’s fine with us…we eat too much anyway…and I think we can go for a retrospective cut too….

Sven….Yes how about sourcing crew snacks from there as well..

Sally….But we have been for the last 3 years…..

Sven…Ohh we didn’t notice…

Lusley…What are your feelings on hour limitations…

Sven..I can’t even spell it….here try a muffin ..they’re part of our new long life muffins with additives this one is 3 years old…and it still tastes just like any stale 3 week old muffin.

Sally..Well..we are thinking about a dedicated crew for the 380 and the new 787 because after the new owners sell jetstar they can buy their own aircraft…..

Mick..Ok well you can forget crew rest seats because actors in business class get in them and you know what happens then…We also reckon you could make the toilets smaller so that they are only for single occupancy.

Lusley..Well we want crew to work SYD/JFK transit and then operate JFK/SYD and we are prepared to thrown in a free J/C amenities kit.

Sven…OK but only if there is a free Mick’s Muffin on every crew tray

Lusley..We also want to trial a new Y/C service which never stops..Some crew have back packs with Tea and Coffee and others have ones with hot chocolate and marshmallows.The crew will wear the latest roller blades and the meals will be delivered in a similar way to sushi bars with a sort of oval mechanized track.2 crew in the galley will load the meals onto the conveyor belt which then will move past all the pax.

Mick …sounds good to us….

Sally …we also want to convert the overhead crew rest into a lounge for J/C pax who want to spend more time with some of our crew……with bathroom sinks of course….

Lusley…How about overtime..

Sven….Far too generous…..reduce it down to 7 hours…….which is less than s/h

Lusley …OK is there anything else you want to give away…I mean negotiate….

Sven….Well there is the issue of those naughty girls in s/h ..I mean they keep doing our stuff

Mick….Yeah..So we were thinking we want to do overseas destinations like them

Sven…I miss my Gyoza’s…. they’re nearly as good as my muffins….hey Mick that’s an idea Gyoza flavoured Muffins.

Mick…If we get back our Japanese trips we can talk the crew into doing standby’s at the jetbase

Lusley ….Where did you guys do your negotiating training

Sven…Ohh the breakfast cereal uni..I got my diploma from the uni of fruit loops and Mick got his from the uni of Coco Pops

Of course this is all fictional and never happened and any resemblance to any persons or groups living or dead is purely coincidental

And5678

27th Feb 2007, 02:26

RW...

I am more than happy to discuss just that. I prefer to do it in a civil and respectful manner, minus the mud slinging.

roamingwolf

27th Feb 2007, 02:51

Mate you said... "I prefer to do it in a civil and respectful manner, minus the mud slinging"

But you must have memory problems because you started with this

"Back to the clubhouse for long islands teas while the girls slog it out on centre court"

Mate have you ever heard the saying "people in glass houses...." :hmm:

Pegasus747

27th Feb 2007, 03:29

Gentlemen,

whilst the satire is extremely funny , and i am sure that the people it's intened to offend are as amused as anyone else its so unproductive.

If being agressive means that you ridicule the people you have to negotiate with then i am sorry i dont think its a sensible strategy.

In my considerable life experience, when someone insults you it's very hard to sit down and do a deal with them that benefits them in any way. More likely it would result in the opposite.

Whilst the management at qantas are obviously thick skinned, it would not be sensible just prior to EBA negotiation to piss them off to no effect.

whilst i do not always agree with every strategy of the FAAA past and present, it would appear from all accounts that in countries like the USA where their laws are similar but not as bad as ours, that the unions that are able to reach compromise and negotiate sensibly are the ones that are at the table.

The easiest thing for a unioon to do and the FAAA would be no different , would be to issue daily press releases outlining the incompetence of the various managers, the appalling decisions and the stuff ups. It would also be easy to details the vast wastage that occurs because of management and the over staffing and stupidity in some of the CCM's. This might put a wry smile on the faces of some of the FAAA members .

But can i suggest it would be like as a colleague of mine once said "pissing in your trousers" . You would get a nice warm feeling at first and then you would start to smell and no one would want to go near you.

This is not to say the Unions including should not speak out on issues and via the ACTU all unions collectively and working together have issued significant media releases and newsletters to members.

I dont think anyone in the FAAA is "afraid" to speak out, as was clearly demonstrated in the dispute when Qantas trained 1000 scabs in 2004. the level of media was unprecedented. But when you speak out you need to be sure that the result benefits your MEMBERS rather than making you the official or the members just feel better or having your egos assuaged.

Guardian1

27th Feb 2007, 06:08

I look at this site from time to time to see what the minority of crew who post on here "think" about certain issues.

Eden99 it is interesting that some in here think you are an FAAA official, and judging from comments like roamingwolf's , it is amusing that he thinks you are Mijatov.

Of course,those who know senior officials of the FAAA (LH) and those who follow industrial issues closely and who understand these issues,would know that the senior leadership of the FAAA are the best in the history of the union. The current officials have delivered on every promise they made to the membership in 2003 and their term isn't even expired.

People like roamingwolf are interesting because they attack the FAAA for not having enough "venom"..... i think Pegasus 747 summed it up very well when he said words to the effect that if you want to attack people like Dixon in public then you can expect a similar response back from the employer..... remembering that Dixon now has the full array of industrial laws he can use against the LH FAAA and its members.

Would roamingwolf really like to provoke Dixon into issuing individual contracts for LH crew???? Does he think that would be a good outcome. Dixon uses every opportunity to atack only 2 Qantas unions out of 13..... and they are firstly and foremostly the Mijatov led FAAA and more recently the pilots union AIPA. He does not attack the FAAA International Division because they "bend over " as roamingwolf suggests.

roamingwolf is also interesting because he doesn't actually identify or nominate anything bad, wrong or defficient that the FAAA has actually done. This is because the FAAA has actually delivered.

He perhaps might like to go back to previous incompetent officials who produced the disaster called EBA6 OR who the Company laughed at when a 12 hour stop work meeting was called in feb 2003.

roamingwolf also will have an opportunity to stand for FAAA elections next year in march. Lets see him and other like minded individuals come forward... produce a platform and indicate to crew how and what magic they intend to use?

It is easy standing in the peanut gallery, like roamingwolf and continually sniping .... and at the same time being "clueless" as Eden suggested he is.

The FAAA has never agreed we are overpaid.... what the FAAA has said is that it intends having frank, open and mature discussions with its members so that we don't face oblivion. Frank discussions mean jusdt that.... discussing realities of the situation that we are facing...rather than doing what roamingwolf suggests and hide our faces and pretend it's all a bad dream.

The Company knows we are the most expensive and they are actively eliminating us because we are. Qantas management aren't interested in the FAAA's view as to whether we are or are not overpaid..... as Eden99 said that is irrelevent. What is clear to Qantas is that it can replace its most expensive crew (LH) with much cheaper alternatives.

The FAAA is simply saying crew have to address that reality or they will not have a job.... roamingwolf's solution is to slag off at Dixon (QANTAS) and by doing so ,that it will magically eliminate all the problems.

To Eden99, i say there is little point in engaging people like roamingwolf because they are not influenced by rational debate. They have a narrow fixed view on things and whilst they are well intentioned, they firstly have no industrial experience, secondly they do not understand the industrial laws and thirdly they do not comprehend the damage that can be done to 3000 LH australian based crew if their zany views were to be implemented.

Finally, it is clear that the FAAA leadership has got overwhelming support amongst the membership..that has been demonstrated at every opportunity.

roamingwolf

27th Feb 2007, 07:50

Guardian

“it is amusing that he thinks you are Mijatov”

When did I say Eden was MM?

“The senior leadership of the FAAA are the best in the history of the union” … Dream on Bulwinkle

“roamingwolf are interesting because they attack the FAAA for not having enough "venom"…Mate thats because at the Rowers club both of you had that venom but somehow it’s disappeared…where is it guys?

“this is because the FAAA has actually delivered”….When did this happen boys ?

“The FAAA has never agreed we are overpaid.... what the FAAA has said is that it intends having frank, open and mature discussions”….So this means that frankly we are paid more than anyone else .as I said if you walk into a car yard and say that the same car at another dealer is 30% less you are saying it is overpriced.

If you are saying that we are paid 30% more than say s/h for the same job you are saying we are overpaid by 30%.

You twist and produce words that I have never said.I never said to hide our faces I said not PUBLISH them on a public forum.But mate you seem to want to shout it from the roof tops.

“it is clear that the FAAA leadership has got overwhelming support amongst the membership”….what planet are boys on?

By the way Lower..mate that as usual was a ripper but i reckon your radio gig was your best

surfside6

27th Feb 2007, 08:24

RW...you appear to be living in the 60s when Union power was at its peak.
"The best form of defense is offense"....then.... not now.
Union membership has declined and legislation has all but immasculated the remainder.
None of us likes what has/is happening.
But it is time to use intellect not testosterone.
The membership is NOT militant because of its demographics.
Mistakes have been made in the past...but not by the current FAAA executive.
GB,TW,JB handed them a poisoned chalice.
They have done the best with what they were given.
Under the circumstances their performance has been outstanding.
Negotiate a viable future not an unacceptable funeral
You do not speak for the majority.
I work with a wide variety of crew and none of them is as hostile as you.
Most...if not all....are far more pragmatic.

roamingwolf

27th Feb 2007, 08:49

Calling all faaa troops hostile in area...all troops man the battlestations...

You gotta laugh Surfside.You tell me mate that i'm living in the 60's and your name is surfside6.

mate attack has and always will be the best form of defence.mate i'm not hostile i just don't like being taken for a ride.

it's going to be hard for you to negotiate something when you've got your head between your ankles eating a muffin.

pal i see that none of you answer my questions just the same groundhog day self congratulating pat on the back and blow wind in your own sails.

lower posts a ripper of a joke and you boys come flying out of the closet.Mate i would have laughed my head off when someone in the bunker saw his post.:E

samford

27th Feb 2007, 09:18

roamingwolf,

"Mate" quit your whinging.

stubby jumbo

27th Feb 2007, 10:16

Word around the "bowels" of QCC is that the axe is about to fall across a large chunk of the Qantas Airlines business ( Lusleys teem)
Apparently Il Duce did not want to give the impression that it was the "soon to be annoited"- APA boyz pulling the strings.

So its one last.......RIP, RORT , ROUT ( by JB) before the deal goes thru ( if indeed it does!!! )

The Visitors will be quaking in their boots.:D

Here we go again:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

sydney s/h

27th Feb 2007, 10:19

You guys talk of the '60's and then mention the word "scabs".

That is such an old word and so wrong to call the F/A's that trained up "scabs".

I had a mate who trained and he is not a scab. The company are to blame.

And to think that Mr Guardian is a possible FAAA official and uses these terms.

God help the LH FAAA at the end of the year.

hawke eye

27th Feb 2007, 11:49

Sydney s/h

Your naievety is amusing.
By your mate "training" as you put it, he was effectively saying to the Company use me to work, and ill do it at a cheaper rate.By strikebreaking I will be undermining an industrial protest which is designed to apply pressure on the Company. This form of assistance is aimed at your mate possibly gaining employment at the potential of your expense.Maybe even your job.

Do you think your mate realised that had a full strike gone forward and he had flown that you might have been sacked and he might have been offerred full time employment on a contract basis.
Do you think that this thought process occurred to him or do you think he was sitting around with nothing to do and thought hed love to hop on a plane for a couple of days.

Oh thats right the Company are to blame they made him do it.The Company are not in any way to blame for the decisions individuals outside the Company make when accepting employment. Buyer beware!

Look, I hate the word scab, I think it is a word that denigrates the user more so than the accused.
However, by your mates actions he was proving he was no mate of yours - just my opinion of course :ok:

Ps Roamingwolf, get off the FAAAs back. You sound like a former official or a former officials friend.Historically I think there are very few officials who are blameless for many past contentious issues. Some of those past decisions still haunt us today and will continue to do so well into the future(or whats left of it). They should also be appreciated for having a go.
Get over this union bitterness and move on.

Eden,Guardian i may agree with what you say but probably best if its not said. remember Deny, deny,deny.The company often does, look at the recent Frankfurt allowance incident. It apeared nobody made the decision - or would admit to it.:D

gloriais18

27th Feb 2007, 11:58

Mr Eden thankyou for your reply #320.. No I am not offended and yes I am always willing to learn from those with superior knowledge/experience.

Mr Guardian said: "The Company knows we are the most expensive"

"What is clear to Qantas is that it can replace its most expensive crew (LH) with much cheaper alternatives."

And that is exactly the basis of my question

Could someone help me understand specifically what aspect of employment makes LH, relative to those who pretend to replace them, so expensive.

Salary Expense? I'm not convinced.
Uniforms? No
Manuals? No
EP? No
Allowances? Maybe
Overtime/duty penalties? No (At least not compared to SH)
Administartive support?. Most probably.
Overnight accommodation/transport? Doubtful

Ms SydneySH you say "God help the LH FAAA at the end of the year."
You maybe correct. It would seem to me that some LH crew are reluctant to help themselves.

surfside6

27th Feb 2007, 12:28

RW...when you have an indefensible postion...which is most of the time.... you resort to personal attack.
Develop a cogent logical argument minus the vitriol and you may taken seriously.
At present you are nothing more than third rate comic relief.
There are important issues to be dealt with.
The negotiations need to be conducted by coolheads.
The outcome affects 3000 people,their families and livelihoods.
"I would rather die standing than live on my knees"is an anachronistic cliche oft spouted by those who cannot negotiate change.
In todays IR climate such an attitude is both irrelevant and dangerous

roamingwolf

27th Feb 2007, 18:47

Surfside

Mate you said.. "RW...when you have an indefensible postion...which is most of the time.... you resort to personal attack.
Develop a cogent logical argument minus the vitriol and you may taken seriously.

Mate if you want to see a personal attack then all you have to do is read the posts by pegasus,Eden ,Guardian and yourself.

If you want to see an indefensibe position then read the same posts.I have to laugh because my questions were never answered.

I'm getting tired of typing this but here it is one more time and maybe THIS time someone from the union will answer it.IF you walk into a car dealer and ask for the price of a car and then tell them that another dealer has the same one for 30 -60% less you are saying it is OVERPRICED.IF the faaa on a public forum admits that we are paid more than others then the union is saying that we are overpaid.I'm not sticking my head in the sand i just don't want to shout it from the roof top.

You do not PUBLISH or SAY what you are thinking when you are about to go into negotiations.

and all the faaa DO say is stop having a shot at the union.Mate i'm not having a go at the union.i'm having a shot at the boys running the union

You also said " At present you are nothing more than third rate comic relief"

If you want to see something funny read lowerlobes post or read the posts here by the union

Hawkeye Pal as me being bitter thats not true as i said yesterday i just don't like being taken for a ride.If we don't ask questions and get answers then mate we might not have anything to move on to.There are a lot of crew that support the union just because it is OUR union.But we should ask questions and when the people say they are the only ones that could understand the situation they are insulting crew as a group .

With the so called scabs...some of the people that were trained did know what they were doing and some were fooled by the company.i personally know one girl who was called up probably because she was on the waiting list.When she asked why they were being trained at night and bused into the base at weired hours and not given uniforms but t shirts and they wouldn't say so she walked out.
Mate the company was to blame because they started the whole mess as well as some people who already worked for the company.these people were asked if they would be prepared to work IF we went on strike.I reckon THEY were the ones who knew what they were doing but not all of them

The The

27th Feb 2007, 19:21

The company are currently managing an apparent surplus of FA's. In short haul we have temporary part time, LWOP, and forced leave occurring over the next 3 months. Also a number of FA's have taken VR over the past couple of months.
I know long haul have also had forced leave etc etc.
Yet at the same time, there is a massive recruitment of MAM casuals. I believe there are schools going through right now, and the recruitment numbers are in the hundreds!
It is obvious that in the future, MAM casual and other outsourced employment of cabin crew will make up the entire cabin crew establishment.
If short haul are endorsed on the 747, and there are enough cabin crew in off-shore bases to operate the 744, then there will be no need for an Australian LH division.
If I were long haul now, I would seriously be considering a transfer to short haul BEFORE the demise of Long haul. We permanent crew at short haul still enjoy pretty good conditions and pay, and contrary to popular opinion DO NOT receive less allowances overseas. They are just paid directly into our pay, which saves the company administration costs.

lowerlobe

27th Feb 2007, 21:47

The The,

You raise an interesting point.If any of the FAAA people here can answer this it would be interesting.

How can we check up on the company to find out exactly how many crew there are in the overseas bases.Do we also know how many MAM casuals QF employs in S/H?

Do we have to take the word of the company for these figures or is there any independent method and how can we verify the numbers?

sydney s/h

27th Feb 2007, 22:38

There are about 1300 crew in the Sydney SH base. Approx 450 casuals.

There are approx 25 classes going through training up till May 2007 of 16/class. This is Australia wide.

The new F/A's are all contract C - minimum 85hrs/mth. Most are doing far more (like 130-140hrs).

How is the seniority system going to work when there is no new crew joining the ranks?

speedbirdhouse

27th Feb 2007, 22:51

Ask your union.......

Guardian1

27th Feb 2007, 22:52

sydney s/h- i have never used the word scab.

hawk eye's post about the actions of some of the fixed term contract crew that were employed by Qantas in L/H in 2004, pretty much reflect my view also.

lowerlobe- you actually ask reasonable questions for the first time.... and without an attack on the FAAA. You therefore are entitled to answers in the same spirit.

In regard to o/s based crew numbers EBA 7 stipulates a cap of 870. The FAAA in the Planning and Scheduling committee, gets this information from the Company. Also, Qantas Operations have these details and if Qantas wanted to deceive, it would be quickly uncovered.

The point that needs to be made lowerlobe, is that the cap on O/S bases is no longer "legal" if i can put it that way. WHY?? WELL BECAUSE WORKCHOICES MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANY RESTRICTION TO BE PLACED ON AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO LABOUR HIRE ARRANGEMENTS.

That means, Qantas can hire unlimited people O/S ......... it is only because of other arrangements that this has not already occurred. Constructive engagement with the Company, like the JFK dispensation provides an incentive for the Company not to move in a provocative manner in relation to other issues such as increasing O/S based numbers.

That is why decisions like JFK are made in part.... and it's not always possible to discuss these subtleties in a public manner.

In relation to MAM casuals- approx 400 are currently employed. These crew are at the lowest pay point in the S/H pay structure and are obviously extremely attractive to employ from Qantas' perspective.

What was said by Eden99, for example is exactly correct- there are several groups of cabin crew employed by Qantas, including MAM casuals that a much more attractive to employ as compared to L/H crew.

This is no secret to anyone...... suggestions that this should not be discussed with L/H cabin crew are breathtaking and unbelievable.

How can the FAAA involve the membership in getting their views about what must be done to prevent a close down of the LH Division if we all can't actually confront facts and figures??

Roamingwolf's position on this is quite astounding...but as i indicated before, some individuals are blinkered and cannot be swayed by logical and rational argument.

sydney s/h

27th Feb 2007, 23:25

Word over in our little world of Shorthaul....

* MAM Casuals to start working in LH

* SH crew starting to be trained on 747-300's by Christmas.

The The

27th Feb 2007, 23:39

Sydney s/h

In relation to your point about the seniority system for permanent crew, I guess as crew leave, and are not replaced by other permanent crew, we will get rosters that are further impacted by demand days. I think that some of the more junior fa's already get demand days on almost every day of their roster now.

I heard from some casual crew that the company is looking at introducing seniority for bidding amongst contract C casuals. Apparently many of them are unhappy with the current roster system, and this will give them a better chance of getting a roster they are happy with.

From your information about the number of MAM training schools which are currently going through, I can only assume that short haul must be getting a large increase in the amount of flying. The company says we currently have a surplus, so something must be going on if they are employing all these people!!

Interesting times ahead...

GalleyHag

27th Feb 2007, 23:49

Guardian1

400 MAM's in Sydney is more accurate. Perth alone have over 100 so within all bases I would say its a hell of a lot more than 400.

Bad Adventures

28th Feb 2007, 00:01

The mass recruitment of MAM casuals in shorthaul is in preparation for the end of the current shorthaul EBA. I have it on very good authority that the company is looking at removing band payments for shorthaul crew for the next EBA.

As for the 747-300’s. There are only now 4 left operating as VH-EBT is now out of hours and is being scraped or sold. They will also only be operating domestic sectors (unless used for disruptions) for the remainder of there service life.

GalleyHag

28th Feb 2007, 00:46

Recruitment within SH has been on-going now for a number of years this is nothing new.

Everything including bands is up for negotiation in the next EBA. I highly doubt you will see mass resignations.

The number 1 reason for the increase in recruitment is because the flying within SH has increased, we have natural attrition through people leaving plus VR, the company are doing the annual number crunch and sending perm crew onto LWOP, temp part time etc and as usual we do not have the crew to cover the flying program therefore the cheaper option of MAM are recruited. Nothing new, this happens every year.

As for the 747 if we are trained on the 747-300 wouldnt we also be able to operate the 400 as we currently do with other aircraft types?

qcc2

28th Feb 2007, 01:37

issue with S/H operating the 743. CASA framework requires 3 aircraft types with one varient. S/H is up to the max. lets see what the company comes up when the 787 turns up in sydney 09:rolleyes:

mach2male

28th Feb 2007, 01:39

How many aircraft types does shorthaul currently operate?
There is a CASA limit.
The 747.400 has a different "footprint"to the 300 and therefore constitutes a different "type"
To get around this the company may offer/require exclusivity to an aircraft type.
Someone has indicated that the A380 may become the elite fleet with crews having exclusivity to this type.

qcc2

28th Feb 2007, 04:52

the 743/747 have the same emergency exits (e.p's). and as mentioned then there is the 380:rolleyes: should make interesting discussions with the QF/Faaa/CASA:ugh:

mach2male

28th Feb 2007, 05:14

Talk to CASA and you will find that there enough differences to provide for an altered footprint.
Much the same way as the Combi and SP were different..
There are door differences and equipment differences,underfloor crew rest etc.
Talk to CASA and they will bear this out.

seatedandsecured

28th Feb 2007, 09:19

rumour in Brisvegas is that all LH crew have been made to take lsl next bid period....................hence no long haul flying outta brissy

on the flip side Lh supposed to be getting SIN back

go figure

hawke eye

28th Feb 2007, 10:47

The Worst Of The Best ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!

Keep this up and this forum will get closed down once again.
Do you ever read yourselves on here.
This is supposed to be a forum of rumour busting and points of interest.

Not about continually attacking each other and one upmanship.
Short haul vs Long Haul vs jetstar vs jetstar intnl and on and on.Unbelievable.

You must be bloody insecure the lot of you.

Lets try a new tact.
if someone starts becoming aggressive and personal or makes comments which are not in the positive , mature,and reasonable spirit then report that person to the moderator.

This forum has the potential to be a positive discussion board.

The way you lot can not restrain yourselves, god i pity the Company, the union and the passengers.

Im embarrassed that you are my colleagues.

The behaviour you lot continually display on here gives the Company the right to believe their clause 11s arent working as you still obviously fly.
Fortunately I believe you are a mixed up lost insecure lot who are a minority.
If you have posted on here without continually slanging off at each other then please ignore my remarks.
I too have been guilty of losing my cool with one individual on here but the moderator assisted me in keeping my cool and not getting suckered into such childish behaviour since.

As the moderator (tightslot ) so aptly says play nice. if you cant then go somewhere else to play and fly. There are other airlines out there more suited to some of your personalities.:ok: Enough!!!!

lowerlobe

28th Feb 2007, 19:17

Speedbirdhouse.... Ask your union.......

I did and apparently they answered....:)

Hawkeye's correct and that is why I tried to inject a vein of humour into this thread.

To those who post here , you realise that Tightslot is giving us enough rope in the hope that we will hang ourselves !!!!!

Our current situation will always be emotive but let's try and keep it down to a dull roar

How many times have we seen crew that on one hand complain about rude pax and then when you go out as a crew for dinner do exactly the same thing.We are our own worst enemies at times....

surfside6

28th Feb 2007, 21:36

APA have extended the acceptance date from 09/03/2007 to 03/04/2007.
They are having a ring around trying to encourage shareholders to accept the offer.
It aint over yet folks.

stubby jumbo

1st Mar 2007, 09:14

I've had had it with the clowns who masquerade as "managers".

Yesterday , I was interrogated for 45 min over some innane pax complaint about a CSM's PA about an IFE failure.

SO WHAT IS NEW!!!!!!:ugh:

The buffoon was verbalising me to the point that I would say:
"Yes , the CSM was way out of line and made an inappropriate PA".

......as if.

Look.......if you're ( CCTM) reading this.
1. the IFE system is stuffed.......derrrrrrrr:rolleyes:
2.Pax are all jacked off.:{
3.this is L/H ....we don't rat on one of our own.!!!:}

My advice:
1.buy Saturdays SMH
2. look at the back of the Careers section for Car Park attendants-casual.
3. Submit your CV.
4. Leave us .......pleeeze

My only wish is that when/if the APA crew rock in......they will spot light -slack performance and punt these buffooons over the fence :ok:

QF skywalker

1st Mar 2007, 10:32

What was the wording of the PA the complaint was related to ?:confused:

sebby

1st Mar 2007, 10:35

Is the passenger for real?

Sounds like they just want something out of it... Or the PA must have been quite bad.. do tell!

lowerlobe

1st Mar 2007, 19:26

Firstly , beware Stubby as the visitors do read this thread and even they can SOMETIMES put two and two together.

Secondly ,I understand that the visitor told Stubby it was a pax complaint and it could have been BUT.............

Do you really know it wasn't one of the new breed of crew doing a bit of office crawling.Some of the visitors actively encourage information trading ...if you know what I mean.

Or perhaps it was a paxing crew or crew on holidays !!!!

Unfortunately you have to look over your shoulders as well these days....

Pegasus747

1st Mar 2007, 22:26

Actually, very well said lowerlobe and Stubby Jumbo....both providing salient comment and in the case of LL sound advice.

The FAAA has just issued a news letter that deals with this very subject as a warning to crew being "iterrogated" by the CCTM's.

Disciplinaries – “Clause 11’s”
Crew would be aware that after continued pressure and outrage from both the FAAA and crew themselves, the Company has resorted back to more informal methods of dealing with incidents involving crew.

However, we still have major concerns regarding the way that crew management is seeking to “manage” crew. The approach of individual managers is often inconsistent and piecemeal. We will be meeting with the Company to further address these issues and our concerns about the clause 11 process generally.

We also have serious concerns regarding the conduct of the “clause 11” formal disciplinary proceedings by crew management. If you are asked to report back to the Company regarding any incident, please do not hesitate to contact the Association for advice. You may be giving a manager just an update regarding a flight. Or you may potentially be an important witness to an event that could have major impacts on a crew member – the disciplinary outcome could cost them their job. Never sign a document without reading it carefully and fully agreeing with the content – you will have no control over where this document goes or how it will be used. Don’t just sign it as you are about to sign on or off. Think about the implications of your actions.

Even if the incident involves a member of the Association (as they mostly do), you can seek confidential advice from the Association. The Association uses the practice of “Chinese walls” where individual members can seek confidential advice from another official, even though the Association may be representing other individuals involved in the same incident. The advice given will best represent your interests.

mamslave

2nd Mar 2007, 03:49

is a new uniform on the cards already?

sydney s/h

2nd Mar 2007, 05:23

new uniform?

yeah probably in the form of a orange polo shirt! :{

mamslave

2nd Mar 2007, 06:10

no seriously. friend of mine just tried to order new stock, been told to wait as new uniform items will be issued to crew?

roamingwolf

2nd Mar 2007, 06:23

Yeah Mate it'll have the Mac bank logo on it.

The The

2nd Mar 2007, 07:28

We are not getting a whole new uniform, however there may be some new items. Apparently the apron is going, so we may get another apron or perhaps a vest.

surfside6

2nd Mar 2007, 08:07

A new Vest?
We just got rid of the bloody Vest.

roamingwolf

2nd Mar 2007, 08:48

Boys and Girls

The real scary part of this is that someone is getting paid to come up with this revolving uniform.

And they reckon that we cost too much money..:\

sebby

2nd Mar 2007, 10:05

I read Peter has designed a new apron that fits better and doesnt bunch around the chest.

Its serious stuff!!

sydney s/h

2nd Mar 2007, 10:18

True. Apparently the new apron has elastic around the waist.

It i'll look like a pair of trackies!

niiiice!!

stubby jumbo

2nd Mar 2007, 20:56

......no doubt the new uniform ideas came from a series of "focus group" sessions with our esteemed "managers" all sitting in a room in QCC with double -shot latte's in hand.

"""mmmmmm, lets see now item #1-new apron. Lets ensure it has a SAT NAV device attached so that we can track them at ALL times-incase they sneak off to do dastardly things in toilets with Blankets or "has been" film stars .

"Next item #2 -trousers. Lets ensure that ( due to OH&S ) we have knee pads sewn in to ensure no injuries occur when they are on their knees during EBA negotiations.!!!"

" Brilliant ideas team................now lets get back out there and kick some more arse!.............remember our new Owners' motto:

"RIP ,RORT & ROUT"

Unfortunately, the sad thing about the above post is that...these Clowns actually believe that they are contributing to the success of Qantas Airlines Ltd.

Go figure!!!!

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 00:45

Boys and Girls

Here's an idea and i don't know if it would work but here it is.We all know that the company through mam is destroying our conditions by stealth.The jobs that mam get effect not only s/h but l/h too.

How about if both sides of the union put out a advert explaining how poor the pay is for a mam compared to permanent crew.We are not saying that maurice is a rip off but that the pay is just not as good that way he can't take legal action against us.

if no one applys for a job with the company through mam or at least the numbers are less than they need.If we make the job unpopular then we might get them to talk with us instead of just trying to shaft us.

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 02:03

But Roamingwolf, the "pay" isn't that bad, its just that it is casual work, ie no guaranteed "pay".

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 02:41

Twiggs
I said compared with permanent crew.

How about

No paid sick leave

No super

No LSL

No paid holidays

As well as more hours and as you said NO GUARANTEED PAY

and there might be other stuff I don’t know about.

Now I can’t talk for you but that doesn’t sound too good to me.

Twiggs there is no question about why the company is using mam so why do you always post a pro company point of view.

We are being undone by things like mam and all you can say is the pay is not that bad.

Twiggs would you want to work for the mam conditions especially the latest contracts

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 02:51

I am not taking a "pro company point of view".
I am just highlighting possible inconsistencies in your plan of attack.
Some would view that as assisting you.

P.S.
If I was coming from a ground job which may or may not be casual and I was looking to fly, hell yeah I would work for MAM conditions.

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 02:52

well then answer my point about the other conditions.

and would you want to work as a mam under their latest contracts especially compared to permanent crew

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 02:56

Tell me how advertising that the pay is not as good as permanent crew get, is going to stop people joining QF as a MAM casual, considering there are no permanent positions available?

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 03:03

and you don't support the company...HOW ABOUT ANSWERING MY QUESTION

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 03:04

If I may....

I would work 130 hours/month (33 hours/week) on MAM conditions if I was young, and coming from hospotality/retail and permanancy was not an option. Of course I wouldn't give up what I have for those conditions and it is silly to hypothesise about doing that.

Last I checked every employee in this country gets a min of 9% employer super contributions.

I agree, something needs to give, but perhaps advertising could have the reverse effect? I really think introducing a new pay structure/divisor with a different type of flexibility for new emploees is the safest option for all.

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 03:12

Well said Samford.
Wolf, I believe I have answered your questions.

hawke eye

3rd Mar 2007, 03:15

Advertisement.

what might make applicants think twice is if an add by the union or ACTU or the company explaining to the public there are no full time jobs available. Flying for Mam or as a kiwi base will not give you entry into QF mainline - at all!!!
Heavily emphasise that there will be No way of ever becoming a full time employee by flying as stated above.
Nothing illegal in that. In fact it is supporting the Companies employment process and transparency of hire.
Maybe the FAAA can ask the Company to highlight that in their recruitment adds so there is no confusion or false hopes for people who could be persuing other avenues of employment which offer greater opportunities and provide reasonable benefits such as annual leave/LSL/ sick leave etc.

Be aware there will always be a small contingent of the work force who is happy with a casual conditions for short term periods.

Im sure if the Company asked there MAM casuals how many would seek to transfer to full time employment with above conditions there wouldnt be many casuals left.

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 03:17

Twiggs…NO YOU DID NOT..

You said “Tell me how advertising that the pay is not as good as permanent crew get”

you did not answer my other points of their contract such as no paid sick leave ..no super…no LSL etc….

If you point out to people who are thinking of flying that the conditions are bloody awful then they might not apply.

If a business advertises a job and no one applys because the pay and conditions are not good enough then they have to increase their offer.

Girly if the company cannot get enough people under the mam idea and the crew that are mams are more expensive then maybe they will hire more permanent crew because they are not any cheaper

If people who want to fly see that flying as a mam is not as good as they might have thought and if they do not apply mam will have to increase their offer.

This makes it more expensive and the whole idea of using mam was to save money.

The only thing that the company reacts to is …MONEY

That’s the ironic thing mam was set up by a guy that used to be on the union to protect pay and conditions of workers

hawke eye..mate very good point ..if there is no light at the end of the tunnel then they might lose interest

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 03:27

But these people applying are not leaving law firms to join MAM.

They are mostly young, often fresh out of uni (or high school as I encountered last week), or come from hospitality/retail. They often say they are here until it no longer suits, then they'll move on.

They really have little to loose by flying casually, apparently the Middle Eastern Airlines like the experience they come with. I'm really not trying to dull down the issue or your ideas, but the job appeals to people for so many reasons. Targeting just one component of may put some people off applying, but not enough to make an impact (thats my belief anyway).

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 03:30

samford
there is a lot more than just one component..
as i said to the company spokesperson
Money
NO Paid sick leave
NO Paid holidays
NO Super
NO LSL
as Hawk eye said no chance of transfer to a permanent position and i'm sure there are a lot of other points in the latest c contract that are not apealing

but then we can always do what the company and the company spokesperson want us to do and that is NOTHING

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 03:38

Who is the company spokesperson?

If you are refering to Twiggs, I believe the post that seemed to get you a tad hot under the collar is:

But Roamingwolf, the "pay" isn't that bad, its just that it is casual work, ie no guaranteed "pay".

Well, that statement is infact correct - (Note the word "pay"). MAM casuals get what you and I would get if we started all over again today.

What they don't get is, LSL, paid sick and paid holidays. Once again - ALL Employees, beit on a casual basis or any other are entitled to 9% superannuation.

You see, my point is, look at the market and who is applying. Were you thinking about LSL when you were 20 years old? I know I wasn't.

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 03:55

samford

they might think about lsl but a lot of people are interested in sick leave and holidays.

Holidays are why a lot of people join the job in the first place and IF they find out that they don't get paid leave they might think twice

If the union can point out these and other things it might make a difference.if the union points out the difference between permanent crew conditions and mam then it throws a spanner in the works.

if we don't do anything the company will continue to reduce us.samford what do you suggest we do?

Twiggs or the company spokesperson talked about the pay only and when i kept asking her about the other points she doesn't come back.

try and look for a post from twiggs about protecting crew pay and conditions

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 04:08

Mate, I am giving you credit for thinking. Like I said - I'm not dulling down your ideas, I'm all for constructive thinking.

As I mentioned, the next EBA, the unions should be looking at introducing a tiered system, so at least we can get people into the company rather than outsourced. Yes it means two different lots of conditions, but it is some sort of protection for everyone. We don't loose work over it, they get LSL etc.... it's worth a shot.

What does bother me a little is the fact that team leader (CSS in L/H speak) is open for MAM as well as everyone else. At this stage there isn't much difference to the old system of second senior. But with the regional flying coming to S/H, have to wonder if it will be a dedicated position soon.

The The

3rd Mar 2007, 04:08

Samford,

The MAM casuals are actually on a higher hourly rate than you and I. They just don't get any band payments.

The MAM casual hourly rate is higher than our highest (I think that is 9 years flying) hourly rate. There is also no monthly cap on how many hours they can work, so some are earning big bucks.

If a MAM casual were to get offered a full time position, they would drop to 1st year pay, which would be a significant decrease in pay. And they wouldn't get our band payments, as these do not apply to new entrants into short haul.

They would get holiday pay, sick pay and staff travel. However to many of these young people making money now is what's important. Not many people at 20 are worried about what they will be doing at 40!!

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 04:09

I think it's a long time since Roamingwolf lived in the "real world".

twiggs

3rd Mar 2007, 04:12

The The,
hit the nail on the head there.
Casual has always meant no benefits but a higher hourly rate, doesn't matter what profession.

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 04:13

Well there you go, I guess that compensates for alot then doesn't it. Thanks for that.

So if team Leader becomes a dedicated position (or has that already been decided?), where does that leave the future? CSM would be a matter of time, then there really is no holding back, because they can progress without ever becoming permanent.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy working with alot of them - although I don't really venture too far from home these days.

lowerlobe

3rd Mar 2007, 04:18

This makes me laugh as it as if nothing changes but reading the posts here it seems as though someone attempts to come up with an idea to protect our jobs and careers and then a number of you jump on the idea.

personally I think drawing attention to the fact that MAM casuals do not get
PAID SICK LEAVE or PAID HOLIDAYS or STAFF TRAVEL is a good idea.

As far as Twiggs is concerned she never answers a question and as far as i can remember has never posted anything that would look like she is interested in crews T&C's.

In fact here is a post that I made asking Twiggs some interesting questions...which she never answered as usual..

Twiggs,

Your quote… “In the delay in question, one option PRESENTED to the crew was to take minimum rest in Narita and get home as scheduled, and the duty was to be treated as a continuous one (lots of overtime), from sign on in MEL till sign off in SYD.

IT WAS only an option GIVEN, not a request, and was probably declined as the crew in question did not consider that amount of rest to warrant the extra money or the fact that they would probably get home a day late.

The S/H crew THAT were called out, paxed to NRT had 12 hrs off and operated back to SYD, slightly easier than if the L/H crew had operated a delayed service, had less than 12 hrs off, and then operated back to SYD”

Twigs………Your post seems to be extraordinarily well informed and would certainly indicate a source from within the office.If you know someone in L/H ops or were even on the pattern yourself then how do you know what happened with the S/H crew?

Not that I am inferring anything and any resemblance OF YOURSELF to an office employee is purely coincidental I’m sure………and you wonder why some people have doubts about you...

Don't tell me your last cab driver has a next door neighbour who has a brother who works in L/H scheduling and sister who works in S/H ops

NOW I'm sure I know what REAL world Twiggs moves in...

samford

3rd Mar 2007, 04:22

Wondered how long it would take.

Your posts don't change alot either LL. Is quoting Twiggs what you gets you up in the morning?

It has zero effect.

lowerlobe

3rd Mar 2007, 04:52

Neither do your posts samford.

As Twiggs won't answer this one I take it you are friend of hers or work at the next desk ????

I don't really care who you are but there are a number of people here that I doubt are really crew.

The last thing they would want is for crew to develop an effective strategy to beat the company at their own game.If that is the case it doesn't take much to work out where they are from.

RW came up with an idea ( and thats a lot more than some others)
for protecting us and it's funny who comes in and tries to discredit that idea.

You have to wonder why?

ps Twiggs I'm still waiting for an explanation and interested in how you know so much about that Mel/Nrt trip for both L/H and S/H?

resboy

3rd Mar 2007, 04:56

Post happily deleted by RESBOY cause the children in here can't even come up with valid discourse. Just rude, petty, personal attacks.

lowerlobe

3rd Mar 2007, 05:01

The company spokesperson has just signed off and did not answer the question...

I just wonder how many people here are not crew at all ?

lowerlobe

3rd Mar 2007, 05:09

Midnight...

How many hours are they required to work?

If the MAM's get as much money as us where does the company save it's money?

Why don't we as RW said point this out in Ads and the fact as Hawk Eye said that they don't stand a snow drop in hells chance of becoming permanent.

I think we have to look at all options to put the heat back on the company..Look at what public opinion is doing about the take over bid.The press is keeping the pressure up because they can smell blood and thats what we have to do with the company.

Do not take the pressure of the sods for a second

B A Lert

3rd Mar 2007, 05:40

How many casual/part-time/contract staff receive the benefits of full-time employees, not just at Qantas but in any other industry you care to name? The higher hourly rate of pay is to compensate for the loss of continuity of employment and the benefits that accrue from that. As for Staff Travel, next thing some one will suggest that refuellers will receive the benefit as they fuel aircraft.

The world is changing, be that right or wrong, but it has has left Lowerlobe and his few fellow travellers well and truly behind - it's time to move into the 21st century. Some old trogs just don't seem to get it!:ugh: :ugh::ugh:

speedbirdhouse

3rd Mar 2007, 08:21

Ah.......how nice it is to have QF longhaul's number one hater join in the debate on casualisation.

The concept of which was "sold" by the business community to the broader community as a way for them to balance the peaks and troughs in the business cycle by having a proportion of their workforce employed under these "flexible" arrangements.

The changes balert is referring to don't relate to the rest of the world of course but rather john howards changes to the rules re these arrangements.

It wasn't too many years ago [5 or 6] where casual employees HAD to be offered a full time position if their casual employment lasted beyond 12 months as clearly there were positions for full time staff available.

These rules protected the workforce by preventing business from using [the original concept of] casualisation as a way of avoiding paying proper and decent wages and conditions in this country.

john howards changes saw and end to these protections, the results of which have seen businesses like qantas move to casualise massive proportions of their workforce.

The ONLY way to get a qantas flight attendant job is under these arrangements [unless you are prepared to leave the country]

The net effect [beyond ever increasing company profits] of these arrangements is to create a class of people unable to effectively participate in our society.

Banks won't lend to them for cars or houses because they lack security of income. I can't imagine what it must be like to bring up a family under these arrangements.............

Australia was once a fair country where the community universally recognised that as a nation we were wealthy enough for ALL to have a degree of quality of life, even if it was nothing beyond a car, a house and a holiday once a year.

You aren't right about much balert but you are right about the times are a changing.

The electorate ARE a wake up to the lies, deceptions and societal changes that have occured over the last 10 years and the lying little toad in canberra is looking decidedly uncomfortable.

A large percentage of the voting public have children AND serious concerns about the society these children will inherit.

stubby jumbo

3rd Mar 2007, 11:42

'was surprised to see a post from you tonight Lerty as I thought you would be down at Oxford St suitably attired for the annual parade.

1. Why are your drab posts in bold font?
2.haven't you got something better to do than hang out on a Cabin Crew forum.

YOU ARE NOT /AND NEVER HAVE BEEN CREW.

You sit somewhere on QCA and occasionally see us marshall onto buses out the front of QCC and that makes you an expert on all things related to our culture.

Take the advice of Speedbird.......find a nice quiet spot somewhere else with your cup of Horlicks and Readers Digest and contemplate the future of the Universe.:8

roamingwolf

3rd Mar 2007, 20:29

Hey resboy...So mate you are university trained (did you finish your course) and now you fly for J*...( & did you fly with Qantaslink by any chance ?).

No wonder mate you don't have a problem with mam's and other casual but you applied for your job with J*.

Why are you flying for J* when you went to uni? You didn't like the big bad world? or was it a BA that about 10 billion others have and is of no use.

resboy said "Hold the phone love they fly free and stay in posh hotels everyday"

Mate of course crew fly free do you think we should pay to go to work?

"Here you go pal you have a LHR trip that will cost you $3000 plus accomodation"

Exactly what posh hotels do you stay in mate with J* ?

Companies like qf employing casuals gets around laws to protect workers but then people like you go off and apply for lcc's and undermine the rest of us.I reckon there is no point going on about this because its been done already.There is nothing insular about any job we just don't like being white anted

Our job was fine until GD started things like AO ( J* version1) and then J* and now J* international.

But mate I really hope Tiger comes in and does to J* what J* did to QF.Then we will see if you are so happy with people happy to be paid less than you.and don't think it won't happen pal because guys like GD are never happy unless they are cutting costs and if Tiger starts up then he will do it big time with J*.

Thats if J* does not get sold by the new owners and they will definitly want to cut wages to pay for their new toys

GalleyChick

3rd Mar 2007, 22:48

Boy i've read soo much garbage on here lately that I've been disgusted by the behaviours of (probably all) of the crew (and non-crew) on here. You should see all the conditions and crap flight attendants go through in Europe (or just the UK for that matter) with the amount of lcc's over there. Fierce competition means low wages and conditions for all of them. Just pray that doesn't happen back in Australia cause there's nothing the F/A's in Europe can do about it - low wages, bad sick pay/holiday pay/etc conditions AND they have to pay for their uniform (couldn't believe when I heard that).

All I say if I was young , fresh out of school/uni/mcdonalds/wherever I would jump at the chance of MAM - the pay is great and I wouldn't care about sick/holiday pay as it's already being paid to me upfront. The job is still great (come back to me in 10 years and then i'll tell you if it still is).

seatedandsecured

3rd Mar 2007, 23:52

All MAM casuals emploted in the past 6 months or so are on contract C which gives them Guarrentered pay of 85 hours per month whether they work that many or not. All MAM casuals employed in the future will also be on contract C.

roamingwolf

4th Mar 2007, 00:56

Galleychick

Your LHR based aren't you? flying about 5 years? and ex s/h?

When you have been flying about 6 times that and experienced what it was like before

we took over s/h
AO started
J*started

I reckon you might understand what we are talking about.We are trying to think of ways to stop the situation in OZ becoming like Europe and the UK.

I don't know if you are married or have children but if you did then you would understand what we are trying to stop happening.Not all of us can drop everything and go of to Europe and live on bugger all.

If you wanted to accept low pay and work over there for QFUK without super as well then thats your decision but we are trying to stop that from happening here.

There is no one forcing you to read this thread so you can stick to the QFUK thread and not be disgusted.as a matter of fact a lot of us in L/H were disgusted by the crew who accepted low pay with no super and took our flying.Just as you would be by anyone who accepted lower pay than you and did your job

by the way the other airlines you talked about with bad sick pay etc...mam's get NO sick pay or holiday pay.I don't know what you are saying about getting paid for holiday and sick pay up front.

As was said before what happens if your a mam and have holidays (no pay) and then you have a fall and break and arm or something and you are off for 3 months ( no pay) that means you get no pay for 4 months.

How can you pay a mortgage and support yourself let alone a family.

This started with an idea i had of trying to stop or slow down the company hiring casuals and the people having a shot at me are either s/h,mams or probably company .

As someone else said how do you go to a bank and get a loan for a car let alone a house if you can't tell them you will have a job in a few years time.

Now if you are defending that sort of situation with casuals then there is a job for you in QF management