MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA [Archive]

priapism

10th Apr 2007, 01:33

I hope I can help here with some info regarding the sharing of office space between MAM and the FAAA. as there are some historical reasons behind it.
It goes back to the days when Ansett employed casuals. It was to facilitate the quite groundbreaking ( at the time ) roster system of being able to dump hours down to 85 per month. This system , whereby the most junior got first pick at the dumped work ( Ie reverse order of seniority) , was seen as a good thing due to the stagnation of seniority . At the time there was beginning to be a bit of a revolt amongst some junior people regarding the seniority system , and I know of one or two who were prepared to take it to industrial courts.The company would have probably loved this.
The difference between the Ansett casual agreement ,and what I understand is the current Q.F, one is that , at ansett, the union had the say on the levels of casual employees , NOT the company. Any further deployment of casual labour had to be agreed to by the association.
Thus , it was a good arrangement for the FAAA to lease out office space to Maurice. The domestic branch of the FAAA was not in terribly good shape financially , so it was also a win for them.
Maurice was Industrial Officer for the FAAA when I joined in 1981.
I believe any collusion theories re the FAAA and MAM are unfounded.
Collusion theories between MAM and Q.F management however may be a different kettle of fish.
Apologies for any typos, I've just come off a 14 hour nightshift.

galleyslag

10th Apr 2007, 10:57

Ok, so like he was there before 2003? Because like when did Ansett finish? Thats hot, coz like MAM was so not in the FAAA office in 2003 according to BRW 10/7/03:
"Qantas also called in casual flight attendants from the labor-hire company...(MAM) to help breal the strike. ... a former union official... He runs his business from a residential address in Hawthorne East, Melbourne."
So hot, coz like I found that in pprune.org archive.
So like man, they could be in cahoots could they? I mean like MAM and FAAA(domestic). And like FAAA(domestic) didn't want L/H flying?
So hot right now..........

Cart_tart

10th Apr 2007, 11:48

Well said Priapism :D
Now lets move on from these silly conspiracy theories!!!
:rolleyes:

lowerlobe

10th Apr 2007, 21:42

Priapism..

I understand what you are saying and I know that there are union offiicials who are serious in wanting to represent and protect their members jobs and conditions.

However.....We have here a former union official who has decided to supply cheap labour to the airlines and thus effectively lower and devalue the jobs and conditions of existing permanent cabin crew.

That in real terms is the opposite of what unions are there for.

Now you would think that the union would not want to be seen in the same street with someone who is doing that but not only that if the rumour is true they are sharing the same office...

There are some problems with association whether real or inferred as Kevin Rudd will tell you all about..

Cart if you are going to have any input either way include some reasoning instead of dismissing others views as being silly.:ooh:

Bundy

11th Apr 2007, 01:01

For memory Maurice Alexander left the Faaa in the mid 1990's. He went to another company before setting up his own to supply Ansett. Casusal started at Qantas about January 2000. The John Howard Liberal Government bought in casualisation in the workplace, and Work Choices has meant there is no limit to the number of casuals employed in any industry. Something like 27% of all workers in Australia are now casuals. Maybe we need a change of government and a change to the Work Choices legislation.

Mr Seatback 2

11th Apr 2007, 02:10

lowerlobe...

Understand your point, but...

"However.....We have here a former union official who has decided to supply cheap labour to the airlines and thus effectively lower and devalue the jobs and conditions of existing permanent cabin crew.

That in real terms is the opposite of what unions are there for."

That's right - FORMER. He wasn't with the FAAA when he started MAM, and hasn't been affiliated with them (as a union official) since.

Therefore - as he is not part of the union, at what point should he exist to serve the NEEDS of union members? Ethics and morals don't come into it - it's all a question of relationships. At the FAAA, his clients were the members. At MAM, his client is Qantas.

It's an interesting thought that a former official of any union has an obligation to serve the best interests of ANY unions' members once they leave. BBBZZZZT - wrong. Whilst it would be nice for that to occur, they wouldn't last very long in this airline age of mis-management.

You could make this argument about any number of FORMER FAAA officials who left to either work for the airlines as management, or in MA's case, start up a company that - however you view it - prevents crew from shaping permanent, solid careers from their flying jobs.

Unfortunately, MA wasn't the first - and he certainly won't be the last.

lowerlobe

11th Apr 2007, 04:20

Mr Seatback 2..I think you may of misunderstood my point.I did not mean that because he was once a union official that he should for the rest of his business life protect union members jobs and conditions.

What I meant was that if you have someone that would run or apply for a union position you would imagine that they would have sympathies in that direction.

Imagine if say Peter Costello were to leave the Liberal party and join the Labour party.Do you think the Libs would have anything to do or want to share office space with him anymore?

Mr Seatback 2

11th Apr 2007, 13:40

Sorry - it just read that way to me...totally agree with your last post lowerlobe.

Yes - you WOULD imagine...but, alas...:hmm:

lowerlobe

11th Apr 2007, 20:57

Mr Seatback 2......No probs...It is a funny world out there.

Just to prove what it is like through the introduction of cheap casual labour ,we have just been told by QF that there is another redundancy package.This is the second year in a row where they want to get rid of permanent Australian crew.

They are hiring cheap crew in AKL,LHR and probably BKK as well.

So much for the Spirit of Australia....

gigs

11th Apr 2007, 23:37

to the moderators,,why were the posts removed from the cabin crew section of pprune? thanks gigs

L1A

12th Apr 2007, 10:36

Are the moderators in bed with MAM , QANTAS... ?

Watch this go..

galleyslag

12th Apr 2007, 11:01

well if MAM is in bed with FAAA and the FAAA is in bed with QF, 6degrees of separation would suggest eventually. Everyone has a price, look at LR in Zoo, after a 6 pack - how fine.

its not a question MA doing the right thing as he was a union rep. its the union doing the right thing by its permanent staff. and the casuals. anyone in S/H happy with the current climate. VR in s/h too.

Capt Claret

12th Apr 2007, 12:30

I still call australia 49% home.

Ross Oakley

12th Apr 2007, 12:42

Clarrie!

Are you still up......have another red!!

Can you believe that this exceptionally brilliant managerial type is still in a position that entails actually trying...sorry attempting to look after people? And supplying Companies that he once worked for? Hang on did I say Work???? ok appeared for. What an oxygen thief this person is!!! To anyone that wants to apply for a job with this Company....have a good look at where its been. There is no need surely to actually use them is there?

lowerlobe

12th Apr 2007, 21:11

After reading galleyslag's post I have this nauseous concept of maurie,Darth,LG and others in this one big bed....talk about a nightmare !!!

Talking about everyone having a price...Someone once told me that when Darth was interviewed about his political leanings he replied "I was born and raised a Labour man and I am still a labour man....I just have to forget that when I go to work".....If that is true then some of us do indeed have a price...

gigs

13th Apr 2007, 00:36

i do understand that the moderators fly but,just in case they have not viewed my previous post..........why was all this info removed from cabin crew section of pprune from where it was started???????? thanks gigs

lowerlobe

13th Apr 2007, 07:42

Herre is an excerpt from a L/H FAAA newsletter...

"We have also contacted the FAAA Domestic Regional Division with a desire to have a joint position in relation to the protection of full time jobs and an appropriate balance between full time and casual employment in the light of the divisional flying agreement.

At this stage we have not been contacted by the FAAA Domestic Regional Division to confirm their availability to be part of those discussions"

You would think with VR in both L/H and S/H that the domestic FAAA would be in contact with their L/H counterparts wouldn't you?

gigs

13th Apr 2007, 09:21

mam casuals for long haul??????????

regionalguy

14th Apr 2007, 09:40

lowerlobe
if you have a look at both faaa divisions websites there has been a bit of bitch slapping going on between the two about the vr and casuals. first lh bitch about the casuals and overseas bases, then sh say its not as simple as saying the casual's fault then lh come back out and say we love casuals and wouldn't critize them oh and by the way sh won't talk to us......... pathetic really.

i do have to agree with a previous post though, its not like anyone can stop or even restrict qf putting on all the casuals or sending work o/s for that matter, so blaming anyone other than our johnny is just infantile.

lowerlobe

14th Apr 2007, 09:45

So you agree with the S/H not contacting or returning the call from the L/H FAAA?????

Infantile is tthe petty politics from both sides but at least L/H is trying to talk with S/H.

I guess though that one of the MAM officers in the S/H office took the call and didn't tell anyone...

regionalguy

14th Apr 2007, 10:16

You've taken me the wrong way.

Pathetic is their very public bitch slapping of each other, not the fact that lh did an about face, although that does raise an eyebrow, or that sh have had some hissy fit won't talk to them.

I don't know what the divisional flying agreement is, what that has to do with vr and casuals and i'm sure 99.9% of crew don't either. all i do know is that they should grow up and deal with their crap internally and not subject the rest of us to it.

Like i said before, blaming anyone other than our esteem pm for the casualisation of our workforces and the resulting affects that has had and is having on the rest of us is just infantile.

And for the record, i don't much care that mam is in the same room/office/building or carpark as the faaa, much less who is answering the faaa's phones and taking their messages.

priapism

14th Apr 2007, 10:31

Galleyslag,

Not long after Ansett went bust the Moonee Ponds office was vacated by every one in it. The Ansett bust led to a huge hit on domestic FAAA incoming revenue and the rent was no longer viable until the financial situation improved.

I believe the Vic Branch was also operated from a private postal address for a long while until the finances were such that a commercial premises could be afforded. These were desperate times for the association , as well as the Ansett employees.

Lobe,

Point taken.

Cheers,

P

galleyslag

16th Apr 2007, 03:38

Let us see what the media have to say, Ms Davidson is keeping quiet.
SMH front page April 16, 2007

L1A

16th Apr 2007, 10:21

Qantas talking utter crap: union

By Peter Veness
April 16, 2007 06:26pm

A FRESH row has erupted between Qantas and staff with the long-haul flight attendants' union declaring the airline full of "utter crap".
Qantas executive John Borghetti today issued a statement attacking the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (FAAA) international division chief Michael Mijatov for criticising the airline's system for hiring casual short-haul cabin crew.
"
I am surprised to see Michael Mijatov from the long-haul FAAA criticising the very arrangements agreed to by his union," Mr Borghetti said.
But Mr Mijatov bit back.
"It's utter crap," he said.
"I'm not criticising the short-haul agreement.
"We would be prepared to discuss casual employment here as well."
The comments from Qantas are likely to drive a further wedge between the domestic and international arms of the union which see each other as separate entities.

Mr Borghetti was forced to defend Qantas' hiring system after Fairfax reported that a former union boss was now making money hiring casual flight attendants for the airline.
All potential recruits are required to pay a $49 money order to Maurice Alexander Management when they apply for work.
Mr Borghetti said the arrangement was "in line with standard industry practice".

The $49 charge at the first interview was for a background security check while other charges, such as a medical, were standard across the industry.
He said casual short-haul cabin crew were paid higher wages in lieu of sick leave, annual leave and long-service leave.
Qantas flies about 2500 short-haul flights every week and Mr Borghetti said flexibility was essential.

"To do this efficiently requires considerable flexibility, which is why we have agreements in place with both FAAA divisions with regard to overseas bases, casual flight attendants and shared short-haul and long-haul flying," he said.
However, Mr Mijatov said he was worried Qantas would roll out similar recruitment processes across the group.
"Qantas has made 400 of our members redundant barely four months ago," Mr Mijatov said.

SOURCE :http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21566576-5005961,00.html

galleyslag

16th Apr 2007, 13:29

Did l/h have mam casuals or qf casuals who were eventually made permanent?

cokecropduster

17th Apr 2007, 04:59

L/H never has had MAM Casuals. They have had the 10-11month contractors. Most up until the LHR Base were made FT.

lowerlobe

17th Apr 2007, 05:35

Why do I get the feeling that this is an orchestrated move by Darth.I think I can see a storm brewing...

twiggs

17th Apr 2007, 08:15

Did l/h have mam casuals or qf casuals who were eventually made permanent?

Yes we did have casuals, not sure if they were MAM.
I flew with a guy just the other day who said he started as L/H casual.

lowerlobe

17th Apr 2007, 08:47

QF L/H did have casuals but they were employed through QF not MAM.At that stage if you worked longer than 11 months I think and they had to make you permanent.I remember a number of them going throught the exit interview process.

I don't know if it is true but on another thread there is a post that MAM are recruiting again.If this is the case it is disgusting but consistent with the attitude of the company to cabin crew.

The The

17th Apr 2007, 10:21

lowerlobe

I don't know whether MAM are recruiting at the moment or not, however several hundred MAM F/A's have been recruited since the beginning of this year. This has occurred despite the company managing an apparent surplus of crew in short haul. :confused:

lowerlobe

18th Apr 2007, 02:25

Wouldn't it be great if the government was changed at the next election and they changed the rules so that if you are a casual and worked for more than 12 months they had to make you a permanent employee....That would throw a spanner in the works for Darth

speedbirdhouse

18th Apr 2007, 02:34

......and Maurice.

smokey2

18th Apr 2007, 03:02

I am sure Maurice will manage by giving excess the flick well before any government changes are implemented.

I wonder how much of his revenue is generated by the $49 application fee and other incidentals?

They cannot be checking prospective employees very well considering the quality of staff they are hiring.

regionalguy

18th Apr 2007, 08:17

My MAM C mate spoke to a lawyer about being made permanent because of all the hours he was doing and was told he might have a case at law now but it would be for MAM to make him permanent not QF because he gets his hours of work and gets paid through them.

Happicampa

18th Apr 2007, 12:46

What's the problem with what MAM does really? . Its not his or the casuals fault that QF won't hire directly or give f/t jobs. MAM is just the puppet separating QF from what would otherwise be their legal obligation, to make those doing the same (or more) hours than the average f/timer, permanent. They tell him when and how many to bring onboard, they also have the final say on who gets the gig. No-one truly thinks he gets to call all the shots and just tell QF how many uniforms to have ready, do they ?

There has been plenty of plot thickening comments splashed around this week but surely even the most moderately intelligent of people understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Like it or hate it, its the law folks and until that changes for the better, nothing in our workplace is going to. Yes he's making a killing, but he's not the first and definately won't be the last !

Casuals are encouraged by virtue of the law, no smoke, no mirrors, no sub plots..... just the law. Blaming anyone else for this atrocity is just a waste of time. Its not MAM, its not the union, its quite simply the law.:}

lowerlobe

18th Apr 2007, 20:51

If say Peter Costello left the Libs and joined Labour the papers and everyone else would not be interested in it.....

It's not about the law although the government certainly helps those making these decisions,it is an ex union official supplying cheap labour which effectively downgrades the chances of full time employees.It is about a union which shares office space with that same person....mmmmmm

Happicampa

18th Apr 2007, 21:53

Are you suggesting that QF would not have as many casuals as they do, if it wasn't for MAM and sharing an office with the FAAA ? If so I'm sorry but thats ludicrous ! If it wasn't MAM it would be one of the other labour hire companies, like Adecco (I think thats who they use in NZ) and what the FAAA sharing an office has to do with it is beyond me.

The laws not only allow it, they actively encourage the use of casuals in EVERY workforce, the less guarantee of anything, the better. That's just one primary focus of our new laws. If it wasn't the players we have today, it would be their replacements. MAM get help when needed from the union, I know of a few who have, in fact I've called them myself to get help for a MAM kid, they were good with me and the kid.

And as for Cotello leaving the libs and joining the labour party, yes definately newsworthy, but we're not in Federal Politics here ! This is relatively small union who has an ex employee, covering his workers with an EBA (when he doesn't have to) and paying them decent T&C as CASUALS. Thats right CASUALS, because there are no full time jobs anymore and thats the harsh reality of the airline business in 2007.

The SH FAAA came out this week and said MAM have been sub letting the space off them since Ansett went down, but now that their in a better financial position, their getting something for themselves again. I have to say it sounded reasonable to me, have a read its sobering.

http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/news.asp?id=935

I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason.

casualvermin

19th Apr 2007, 11:14

I still feel uneasy about the FAAA/MAM thing.
Why is our EBA so weak, I mean clause 11 sates a mutual mediator, not AIRC?
How could the FAAA allow qf to force contract A's sign over to B contract if they were to be considered for permanent?
Or 2005 allow Perth casuals to have NIL hours whilst they shipped casuals from the East Coast for months to do a fulltime roster?? That is unlawful.
Or how came the FAAA has allowed the EBA to be breached since the introduction of contract C?
Shouldn't the FAAA be persecuting the company when such events occur?
Shouldn't FAAA have capped casual hours? Some casuals are doing 140-160, despite being underpaid, guess what will be in S/H EBA at end of year. Higher hours, less pay!!
The FAAA are allowing casuals to undermine their "own" permanents. It is like they have no interest in the fact our misrepresentation effects the rest of the S/H employees.
Allow me to go on and say how offensive the FAAA's comeback was, the only reason why permenent QF enjoy "family Friendly" and "flexible" flying is at the cost of the casuals giving 20 days a month and their lousy representation.
The only reason why MA is no longer on FAAA as he learnt from his mate CC about the conflict/collusion.
I wish I could back to my ignorant bliss.

gigs

19th Apr 2007, 17:37

a friend of mine involved in a hire agency for executives did report to me some time ago out of interest.......an faaa exec. from ansett same person a director of the then newly set up flight force for ansett casuals ,the industrial relations dept., littigation and a conclusion of "step aside from one position or the other due to a conflict of interest"......all this from a google find so one would imagine that its not only public knowledge but also history correct casualvermin!!! or is it from this type of start that all the discussion is about? cheers gigs

gigs

19th Apr 2007, 17:48

these posts were started on cabin crew section of prune and then removed 100% from where most crew or people interested in crew stuff would go to find them so for no. 3 times why the removal? why?.... im starting to worry l1a may be onto something in reading those response to my questions cause the moderators say nics! cheers gigs

lowerlobe

19th Apr 2007, 21:03

happicampa...Like so many others here you do not answer the relevant issue at the heart of this.

That is simply that an EX union official who by supplying cheap and non permanent labour (therefore downgrading permanent jobs) to the company shares office space with the union who is supposedly trying to protect those same jobs....

However your last line gives it away... "I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason"..

That just about say's it all....Ask the VB crew about the reason why they should support the S/H FAAA when nearly 90% rejected the EBA supported and actively endorsed by the S/H FAAA.

Before you say something about the EBA being a good deal for VB crew why did nearly 90% vote NO..

There had to be something fundamentally wrong with the EBA endorsed by...drum roll please...VB and the SH FAAA

Happicampa

19th Apr 2007, 21:47

lowerlobe

I've got no idea why VB voted down their EBA, and I don't much care to be honest with you. Quite frankly I have no idea whether it was a good deal or not.

I do support the faaa sh becasue of the work they do for us in our airline (qf). I am one of the members they talked about in their newsletter, I do expect them to negotiate their way through whatever they can for us.

I don't understand the drama about mam, like I said before if it wasn't him it would be someone else. MAM's conditions and money are fine, their hourly rate is $27.00+ p/h, they get the same DTA and they have the same duty and rest times as the full timers. Sure there's no cap on the hours each month, but there isn't if you FWA as a full timer either. If you bother to go digging, other than not being full time and no bands pay, their conditions are the same as ours. And if QF dont' need to make them permanent, they wont.

Drama, Drama, Drama.

lowerlobe

19th Apr 2007, 22:24

Quotes from the FAAA SH…..

Reference has also been made to “cosy relationships” between MAM, Qantas the Domestic/Regional Division

As to “cosy relationships”, if this is “cosy”, then were proud of it and what we have managed to achieve and maintain on behalf of our members.

The FAAA Domestic/Regional Division has always taken the view that it is absolutely necessary and expected by our members, that we negotiate through all issues, before considering any form of action, threatened or otherwise.

The International Division have a different approach to their affairs which is clearly their business and not for us to comment on.

Does this mean that your union just gives the company what they want?

When did the LH FAAA ever just go on strike without any notice and negotiation?

happicampa..I suggest you look at the VB EBA YOUR union endorsed and ask yourself some questions.If 9 out of 10 cabin crew with VB said NO then there had to be something wrong BIG TIME..

Why then did your union support it?

I'm not suggesting any impropiety on by either MAM or the SH FAAA.

But then if you don't much care about other groups it answers my questions ...

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 01:07

mr lowerlobe,,,pls read through the lines of my post on the end of page three regarding ex. faaa person ie faaa deligate and director of labour hire company for flight attendants at the same time...........i guess these three lines of type should sum up 4 pages of debate.........and how any flight attendant in australia from any comapny should be so dissapointed and upset,i know i was after learning this.......miss midnight 63 you may well have a valid point cause why for any known reason would topical posts be removed relating to a labour hire comany ie. not qantas cabin crew talk. cheers gigs fealing a little confused and betrayed.

Happicampa

20th Apr 2007, 01:48

lowerlobe

When was the last time LH went on strike period ? We often have to read their rantings in the papers about what their going to do to the company but I can't remember the last time they actually did anything ? Not only don't they talk and neogiate their way through anything, they bleat like bleeding lambs while not looking after the best needs of their members. "We will not stand for this" is their normal mantra, but thats it..... they're all talk. The Company knows it and ask any manager worth their salt, your union is truly hated by the Company and that can't possibly be good for the members I just don't see how..... at all. I don't apologise for supporting my union who continues to talk to and be listed to by my employer, that alone, is in the best interests of the members.

Does my union give the company everything they want, I sincerely dobut it. I know for a fact the company wanted to force all excess leave to be taken but after negotiations with MY union the end result was bid for 7 days or you'll be allocated 7 days of annual leave only. How long has YOUR union been allowing forced annual and lsl leave in your division ?...... years that's how long. Sure they complained to the members (and probably the papers) but its still happening isn't it. With SH, meetings happened and a reduced forced leave was achieved, your union cried foul, went blue in the face and still the full forced leave is in place. You tell me whats better ?

I said I didn't care why VB voted down their agreement, not that I didn't care about them. The only thing I can say without asking someone from the union why they put forward the agreement, is they probably thought it was better than the alternatives VB has with WorkChoices. Surely you must agree that an EBA is better for workers ? We all know AWA's are the way of the future (unless Rudd comes up with the goods) and I think protection in an EBA for 5 years should definately count for something with the crew that want a career, even for a short time. Stupidity is believing that any company will offer anything other than what their business has to offer and god knows, our laws don't insist on any worker rights at all........ just the boses.

Unless the f/a's in VB are prepared to go on strike to back up their vote, what power does that leave the union. Its really easy to say "go back and do a better job" to ANY union, but we are told, time and time again, by sh, WE ARE THE UNION. Personally I wouldn't vote NO unless I was willing to put my money where my mouth is and strike, I really would need to feel that strongly about the changes being put forward. Maybe they are planning strike action, but there is no-one on their thread talking about it so it would seem unlikely even from that limited source.

We're a very passive workforce in general terms and I know quite a few crew that would come to work regardless of any strike action, those that wouldn't come to work but would see it as an opportunity to get off to the beauticians/gym and some that would attend a union meeting. This from far more experienced crew (ie:years flying) than those at VB. The younger they are the more they want and less they want to do to get it. Perhaps just perhaps that also had something to do with their vote. Of course this is purely speculation on my part. I'm sure 9 out of 10 people saying no also means there was big changes and clearly not to people's liking. Based on my working experience I don't believe our union were saying take it if it wasn't in their long term best interest. Time will tell that we can be sure of.

lowerlobe

20th Apr 2007, 02:09

happicampa ..I think you should replace your words ...Drama,Drama,drama with...Cosy,Cosy,Cosy....

samford

20th Apr 2007, 03:30

Okay, my two cents worth...

It is in all our interests for more casuals to employed on a permanent basis, as their conditions undermine our own - if for no other reason.

The S/H FAAA have their own agenda and do not appreciate hearing the concerns of its members. They screwed over L/H in a number of ways (reduced band payments, regional flying to name just two) and in turn, drove a massive wedge between the two divisions. Leaving all of us vulnerable (long and short haul).

It's not as simple to say casuals get $27+ DTA and the same rest times. Firstly, our MBT is pathetic anyway, but they get worked like dogs one month and get very little hours the next. If you "dig a little deeper" you will see major inconsistancies with their EBA, as well as their rostering.

Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would.

Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands.

As far as the FAAA and MAM sharing an office, it is completely inappropriate. The reasons behind why they are sharing are irrelevant. I would be equally concerned if they were sharing an office with QANTAS, so why should MAM be any different. It may not have had any affects in previous EBA negs etc, but we will never know for sure either way, but the potential is enough to make the whole situation WRONG.

LL - can you clarify something for me please, in your EBA what is the requirement for horozontal crew rest?
If my memory serves me correctly, 12+hrs planned, 14+hrs Multi-sector and 17+hrs unplanned. Is that right?

And yes, the whole situation between QF, MAM and the S/H FAAA seems very cosy, cosy, cosy....

Happicampa

20th Apr 2007, 06:23

Samford

I disagree with a couple of your points. The wedge was well and truly driven between the two unions long before the lower bands and regional flying came in. Putting that aside, the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after. Reducing the bands, was obviiously a company item and regional flying quite frankly saved a lot of us. In case you missed it, JQ do most of our old flying, so to me its pretty simple, we either got the work or lost our jobs.

Not denying the implications this had on lh, not for a minute I accept it has hurt them that is truly unfortunate and they have ended up with more VR than we have thats for sure. But isn't it THEIR unions job to look after them ? And lifting a ban on their overseas bases certainly didn't help them. JQI should be on an EBA like the vast majority of f/a's in Australia, (covered by sh). Perhaps lh could tell their members why their direct competition is on the WORST international T&C this country has EVER SEEN.

I'm sorry but it is as simple as $27.00 + per hour, DTA and same duty and rest times. They are CASUAL, they are allowed to be employed in unrestricted numbers because the law is written that way. It it wasn't MAM it would be someone else and at least he talks to the union. I have no doubt that adecco doesn't have any relationship with any union, let alone a "cosy" one. Would everyone feel better if it was adecco and the casuals were on individual contracts and not getting anywhere near the $27+ p/h they get now, perhaps the $18.00 an hour JQI get on their AWA's would be more palatable. That's the money my mates son got offered and knocked back a couple of months ago.

Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would........ From what I understand about our roster building, to reduce the D days, the MAM's would have to be included in the runs. If this happens it takes away flying that might be used by the full timers in FWA. Happy to be corrected there, but thats my understanding of it.

Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands........ Again, how do the union stop it ? The redundancies are VOLUNTARY, you know for anyone who wants to go. There were people who wanted to go last time but missed out, I'm sure their not complaining. And the fact that the casuals (B's) are complaining about not enough work, might just be because there is less flying at the moment, which fits with additional leave etc.

In short, if "cosy" keeps my union and my bosses talking at a time where workers have no rights whatsoever, then bring on the cosy cosy cosy. Because the way I see, we are streets ahead on that basis alone and at this stage of the employment game, we need all the help we can get folks, that is the sad reality.

ditzyboy

20th Apr 2007, 06:45

Happicampa -
There are caps on monthly hours for both MAM and FWA... Difference is with FWA you choose what your cap is up to the max (162?). MAM casuals do not get that choice.

I think that use of casuals is being expoited and abused. And I do believe their over all conditions to be inferior to those afforded to permenant crew. How Qantas can be saying there is a surplus yet recruit and grow the number of casuals is beyond me. The reason Demand Days is so out of control is proof there are too many casuals compared to permanent. I personally believe the EBA is being breeched in a number of areas relating to the use of labour hire. (This is my own opinion based on my understanding of the relevant clauses. My opinion obviously differs to that of the SH FAAA).

I also disagree with the MAM office sharing the same physical location. Though this has been the situation for a while. Why has it only now become a issue? Perhaps because of the bigger picture - which is what we should focus on. I do agree with the FAAAs position that it was financially up the creek after the collapse of AN. The decision to share space with MAM was a sound business decision, if not an ethical one. I still prefer that to no union at all.

I do agree with Happicampa in that I DO support the FAAA as it is the only resource we have in maintaining our conditions. I am upset about a few things such as the degredation of crew meals, accomodation and crew rest facilities. And the abuse of the casual system as I mention above. I am getting off track. What I mean is that despite my being unhappy with some recent goings on at the FAAA I support them as the only vehicle we have in the protection of our conditions. Where I am not happy I make sure that the union I pay to represent me knows about it and I pursue the matter vigourously. I do not sit in the galley or on Pprune whining without directing my concerns to the one unfit who are able to affect change.

Like it or not the FAAA is OUR union and only as strong as what we make it through unity and support. I know it sounds corny but it's the truth. If the SH cabin crew community put half as much effort into supporting* the FAAA as we do whining about it you'd be amazed at what could be achieved. Who else other than the FAAA is going to maintain or improve our conditions.

*by 'support' I do not mean agree with everything they do or decide. I mean becoming more involved and telling them our concerns in a positive and constructive manner.

Optomistic rant - over! :\

lowerlobe

20th Apr 2007, 08:35

Quote from the SH FAAA…sorry happicamper..

“ the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after.

As I said earlier you typify the SH FAAA ..”we’re OK guys..who cares about anyone else”

So if LH undercut you guys you would be happy with that and who wins out of that…THE COMPANY and DARTH…..

With that sort of attitude to others I can understand why you don’t mind Maurice and think everything is cosy.No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...

As for lifting the ban on overseas bases....ask your boss how the LHR base was!!!!!

Look up the definition of mercenary.....

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 08:42

here is a riddle for you...as a casual employee under a casual eba you are terminated at the end of each duty . that is, not employed until invited back by your employer.....under contract b eba you can be made not required to attend work because you as a casual are not needed......if you want to try to work you can make your self available on a non paid 24 hour call out....to comply with qantas and casa you can not drink etc....if you are called for a duty you can not decline the duty.....if you whilst on the 24 hour non paid call out which you cant decline a duty on and cant drink on well rested etc,you wish to take your self off the available status ,qantas will not allow you to take your self off this status without 48 hours notice.....my question is at that time you have changed your mind is it legal to have this conditional detention for 48 hours with no pay at all????..............if while covered by an eba provision as a casual whilst not being paid is this legal??? any ideas by clued up ppruners would be great cause many contract b folk have been made not required for 30% or so of this month whilst contract c racks up the hours and new hire of cantract c is still in swing.......thought casual was seasonal only???????? thanks gigs

Happicampa

20th Apr 2007, 09:59

Lowerlobe

Who wins in the undercutting........ Your right mate the Company and Darth, you got it in one. But where did the undercutting start..... JQ undercut SH, MAM undercut SH, SH undercut LH, o/s bases undercut LH and now JQI undercut LH. Yes the company wins, big time, everytime, but unless the law changes and makes it illegal for them to do any of this, we'd all better get used to being undercut. The big difference between our guys and your guys, is that ours just gets on with business call it "cosy" call it what you like, meanwhile your guys scream and carry on in the papers pointing the bone at whoever they can, but don't end up any better off for it.

But if agreeing to the regional flying saved my job by guaranteeing flying for us then I'm thankful for that. I'm not saying its a perfect situation but I've still got my job and so has everyone who still WANTS a job as far as I can see. We've all only been OFFERED VR haven't we ? If there's been forced redundancies anywhere I'll stand corrected.

I'm not saying "we're alright Jack, stuff the rest of you", but the harsh reality is life is not the same as 10 years ago..... Cast your mind back, we had two dom airlines and one Qantas international. I reckon saying we had the best conditions in the world wouldn't be far off the mark either. But then life changed and the o/s bases started for you guys and we got the LCC's. God knows what the new guys will do when they get here, but thats another story. Its been a downhill slide for roughly 10 years but it is what it is - and thats a $hitfight.

While I don't have to like the decisions my union makes, I can honestly say, in the end they have been in the best interest of keeping us all in a job and I am happy with that. And just because I openly support and understand where my union is coming from, doesn't mean I'm on the union, god knows I haven't got the time or the patience. There are plenty of us that support what sh have done for us and fully understand why it had to be done.

Quote" No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...
I'll ask again mate, how does anyone stop it ? Johnny wrote them a step by step guide on how to screw the worker while their hands are tied behind their backs........ its about 10 years old and recently updated...... its now called WorkChoices.

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 10:16

does this include working on conditional standby for free!? mr or miss hiccup you seem to khow your stuff so whats you vibe on it? thanks cheers gigs

lowerlobe

20th Apr 2007, 10:26

Howard’s work choices in Australian aviation willingly aided and abetted by SH FAAA and it’s members…

You ask "How do you stop it MATE"....I'll tell you...... You don't shaft your fellow cabin crew in Australia.The new crew applying for J* and VB do not know what is happening and just want to work.It's the existing crew that knew full well what was going down...:=

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 11:00

mr or miss lowerlobe many sh cabin crew had no choice in voting because they were casual so,work choice maybe means no choice!.....i think youd find most casuals would like full time employment......have you not read some of the conditions they work under as in my posts?.....have you no compasion...thanks cheers gigs

L1A

20th Apr 2007, 11:15

Question: Do you really trust the FAAA? ...........Not I, worse than John Howard & No Choosy . :ok:

OH! FAAA (who we pay fees) How is the holiday house, the Mercedes, the private school (for the kids) going ? ....:mad:

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 11:27

mr ditzyboy what are your thoughts on l1a post.in relation to my posts... im not being an a/hole id really like to know as a member of a union and i really like your previous post it was informative..thanks gigs

L1A

20th Apr 2007, 12:15

Dear Ms.or Mr. Gigs

I can confirm 100% that the FAAA allow the free reserve for it’s SH members. Maybe they are gearing up to use you as strike breakers, as LH as they did in 2003 stop work dispute…:ok:

All administrated from the same office …Hmmmmmmmmm!:= := := := := :=

We love Geoff, Go Morris ……we trust you, and love you 100%:mad:

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 12:22

mr or miss l1a i do know that to be a union person in authority with sh/faaa its to be like your stilll paid like a flight attendant or csm or whatever although i could be wrong....can some person clarify rhis?????? thanks gigs

samford

20th Apr 2007, 13:21

I've worked on both sides of the fence and I can tell you, there is a hell of alot more shafting going on in S/H, then I have ever been witness to in L/H.

We are SHORT HAUL, I don't consider for one moment that BOM-SYD should be considered as such. When the overseas bases started, we didn't expect our very own collegues in S/H to be doing LONG haul flying. You see, long haul are now loosing flying in all directions, but at least we knew where things were heading with the overseas bases. God knows what the S/H division will have us doing next.

In response to supporting our union, I agree with your point, but you are forgetting a major point here. We are the union, we as members make up the FAAA and as such our views need to be taken seriously. I am tired of the scare tactics adopted by the association and raising a concern gets very little or no merit at all, afterall "thats what we pay them for"...isn't it?. If there is a market to drop QF flights and replace them with J*, then it's going to happen regardless of our conditions.

I know the issues go beyond this, but we are never going to move forward because of the attitudes like "thats the way it is, nothing we can do about it" seem to be the easier option for alot of people out there.

I for one would rather go down with a little integrity, by trying to protect what little we have left. What I, and countless others have fought for during my 25 years and those who served previously.

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 13:25

pegasus 747 you read but dont post. you seem to have a lot to know about unions but dont post. WHY!!!!!?????????/ thanks gigs

casualvermin

20th Apr 2007, 20:56

NREQ change to AV. Until next duty(where you get paid) you are not covered by terms of EBA ergo not covered by CASA no need to answer phone. However, for the last two years casuals have been mislead and complied. The EBA only applies to a casual when they are receiving a duty credit(ie $$$$)
Gigs you are correct it is unlawful/illegal/incorrect.

roamingwolf

20th Apr 2007, 21:32

Now i know why a mate of mine called the s/h union the judas division.

happi has even admitted everything that people have said about s/h.i reckon we should call them the cosy judas division.now i know why the company does not like the l/h union because they are not cosy with them.

Happicampa

20th Apr 2007, 21:42

L1A,
OH! FAAA (who we pay fees) How is the holiday house, the Mercedes, the private school (for the kids) going ? .... If you've got dirt to throw, please throw it and let the rest of us in on your information.

Samford
Points taken.

Quote: I for one would rather go down with a little integrity, by trying to protect what little we have left. What I, and countless others have fought for during my 25 years and those who served previously. - I couldn't agree with you more, but we are definately the MINORITY of people who think this way, most don't actually give a rats as long as they're getting the paycheque, paying the mortgage and feeding the kids. Unless you've got the backing of the vast majority to stand up and do something, we're all screwed. I've said before we don't have to like it, but..... it is what it is

roamingwolf

20th Apr 2007, 21:47

happicamper

mate your pathetic imagine if every union acted the way you do.we wouldn't need howard to screw us because you do it very well.
you even had a go at us over the overseas bases when the leader of the judas division goes over to the base in london..dixon doesn't need the workchoice rules all he needs are unions like sh
s/h the cosy judas division.:yuk:

galleyslag

20th Apr 2007, 21:55

Well Camp I think SMH sums it up quite well this morning.

I don't know how any in FAAA sleep at night. I guess if you keep saying it is ok, it is ok. Pop another prozac, hop in the Audi and do your job.

Anyone for a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE?

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 22:48

missy happy campa can you read?

gigs

20th Apr 2007, 23:06

casualvermin this free reserve i write about is allowed in writing by the faaa s/h so you would think its legal, you would think casa would allow it re; fatigue and drinking no pims each 24 hr period. you would think at least someone in the know would comment.....maybe happycampa or bring back jetblackmonaro i liked him! pls does anyonehave details?

casualvermin

20th Apr 2007, 23:26

Gigs if you read our EBA you'll find it has typos. Written up quite quickly and vague at best. It is CLEAR to see we have not had impartial representation. The FAAA/MAM thing just shows you what they think of us. Dumb arse cabin crew, not a brain between us. They know no one will do anything about this, thats why the experssion of interest was sent out. Keep us quiet. I guess it is working:ugh:

casualvermin

20th Apr 2007, 23:29

To add to the smoke and mirrors I wonder who would be more interested in the EP "mentor" CASA or Dick Smith. FAAA should have known that was illegal don't you think? Meanwhile.......

Eden99

21st Apr 2007, 01:15

The posting in here has been interesting the last week.,.following the attack on the announced redundancies by Michael Mijatov and the FAAA International Division.
I'll remind people in here ..that was the only attack on Qantas by the FAAA..... it would of course be too much to expect Short Haul FAAA to publicly attack Qantas over anything...much less the destruction of the most basic thing that unions aim to protect.....JOBS.
The extraordinary attack by Qantas on L/H FAAA , by press release further demonstrates the effectiveness of the L/H FAAA attack over the whole issue of "fake" redundancies created by Qantas so that international flying in particular can be transferred to cheaper Qantas crew options like MAM casuals and overseas based crew.
What is also telling is the refusal of the senior people in the S/H FAAA to comment on the MAM arrangements.... creating a distinct impression of "uneasyness" at the very minimum.
Meanwhile disaffected MAM casulas are now contacting the media and openly writing communications to both Qantas and Mr Alexander.
The events of the past week or so clearly indicate which half of the FAAA works for its members..and it certainly isn't the current officials of the S/H FAAA...people who are so out of touch, that 90% of their virgin members have repudiated them in a humiliating public manner by rejecting the proposed EBA.
It should be clear to members of the FAAA in the Domestic Division of the FAAA , that the time has come to sweep aside the current out of touch officials. THEY ARE TOO COSY WITH QANTAS..... THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE NOW.
Perhaps serious people with integrity who would like to stand in upcoming Domestic FAAA elections should come forward...organise yourselves ..and even perhaps talk to officials in the L/H FAAA about joint tickets for example???
A big broom is required to finally sweep away a completely out of touch group of officials and senior staff in the Domestic FAAA.
Finally in relation to some ill informed propaganda about overseas bases in L/H.... the FAAA L/H officials managed to negotiate a cap in 2004 when the previous cap died...furthermore..overseas bases were actively opposed as compared to the senior officials of the Domestic FAAA who not only supported the Company's actions over overseas bases by immediately agreeing to the retention of seniority for their crew going to London..thereby undermining the L/H position not to grant seniority...but the current Domestic head of the FAAA went up there herself.
Also Domestic FAAA in conjunction with Qantas..in the most deceptive and underhand manner..negotiated a grab of international flying by pretending it was "regional" and "traditional" in nature...imagine the outrage if L/H undecut their conditions to take away domestic flying???
This is the same group of people who in 2003 happily signed up to Geoff Dixons wage freeze and undermined the whole Qantas union position.
Domestic Division FAAA members deserve much better than those who currently "pretend" to represent their interests.

lowerlobe

21st Apr 2007, 01:28

Eden99..

We have had our differences in the past but I am with you 100% on this and thank you for posting your comments.

speedbirdhouse

21st Apr 2007, 02:00

I've not had the differences that LL is referring to and wholeheartedly agree.

A single Union looking out for the long term interests of ALL flight attendants.

What a novel idea.......

Eden99

21st Apr 2007, 02:26

We have had our differences.... but our motivation was very similar.

You are welcome.

L1A

21st Apr 2007, 02:32

Dear Eden99

Why are MAM Casuals not affected by all this they (B) which is a vast amount are under severe financial hardship?:sad:

Thanks for your positive post:) :ok: :ok: :ok:

L1a

Eden99

21st Apr 2007, 02:37

MAM casuals are being affected by the actions of Qantas.

Everyone should read page 24 of todays (sat 21 April 2007) sydney morning herald........ interesting and fascinating from many aspects.

No wonder Qantas is furious over the press coverage and MAM and the S/H FAAA are ducking for cover.

samford

21st Apr 2007, 03:08

Well said Eden99. Thank you.

I am actually ashamed to be a part of the SH division at present and even more ashamed to be an FAAA member.

stubby jumbo

21st Apr 2007, 03:59

Have to agree with others in wholeheartedly endorsing your post Eden.
Well Done.

After reading the SMH about the "goings on" in the S/H division ....its enough to make one puke:yuk:

They are a disgrace. The whole MAM /FAAA -S/H thing still has the wiff of Sheer Nylon, as it was her who cobbled this cosy arrangement together with NG,MA and JP. She is still probably on a commission from MA.

I'm thinking that the FAAA-L/H should open up their membership to disgruntled SHORT HAULERS. They already have a good start....-more than 250 ex LONG HAULERS in the Perth Base are ready to jump ship from S/H FAAA -NOW !!! Friends of mine over there are so jacked off with the numbers of Casuals that they are going to bail.....and as usual WA is "out of sight out of mind".

Qantas must be loving this. Union Disunity is exactly what APA want.

The only way we are going to have any hope of pushing back the Wage/Condition Cuts Tsunami is to bat with the one team against QF.If this happened it would be:

GAME ON.:D

casualvermin

21st Apr 2007, 04:58

I smell a law suit......

casualvermin

21st Apr 2007, 22:16

Back to AV days, I think it could be argued unlawful detention, allow me to confirm that. Imagine MAM/FAAA it with a criminal court case:E

roamingwolf

21st Apr 2007, 23:30

casualvermin
mate you have lost me with your last posts but maybe it had something to do with the beers I've drained.Who is going to suit who and who was detained and what has this got to do with the s/h union ?

casualvermin

22nd Apr 2007, 00:34

As a casual our engagement as an employee ends when we sign off. Meaning the EBA has no bearing on us until we are being paid again, on duty whether it be AV Span(home resever), Training, AR or flying duties.

To avoid paying casuals on home reserve, crewing make us NREQ, we are then allowed to amke ourselves AV, but we will not be paid for this reserve. As allowed by our negotiated EBA. Once were are AV we are unable to change this, can only change with 48 hours notice.

It is long winded but...

Under our EBA our engagement ends until offered a new duty($$). When on duty were are then covered by CASA's rules(fitnes to fly). must answer phone, get to work in 120min, EP current etc..

When we're AV, we are not being paid, must answer our phone for whole 24hr day and still must comply with CASA. This means technically were are working for free.

Which means slavery, unlawful dettention as we are unable to go about our own business as were are now on FREE home reserve for QF, even though our engagement is over.

The question is, is it lawful. Being governed by CASA when not activley employed.

Now would you work for free?
Why would a EBA endorsed by the FAAA allow you to work for free?

roamingwolf

22nd Apr 2007, 00:58

casualvermin
Thanks mate for your reply because every airline has its own lingo and I was confused which my wife will tell you doesn't take much.

This all comes down to are you at work or not and if you are not then you should be able to do what you want.the company looks like as if it wants the quinella and have it both ways.they want you to be ready to go to work but not pay you and what if you want to have a beer?

Very interesting

Happicampa

22nd Apr 2007, 01:11

I’ve read the paper and done some digging. Here’s what I’ve turned up.

I rang and ex Ansett mate who said Ansett f/a’s knew all about flight force and its connection to the union, it was well publicised to the permanent crew while they were up and running. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister, nothing wrong.. No complaints from these crew at the time, he had no idea what all the fuss is about. In fact he says another mate was working for FF when AN went down and they (FF crew) got paid all their money almost straight away when the doors closed for the last time – just what you’d expect with a union connection.

Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story".
MAM’s EBA tells us
1. They do get 3% increase every year like a full timer ok no increments, but show me a casual who does
2. They can nominate three days off that can’t be touched (c) contract. The company nominate 20 days work, the remaining days are optional and its the f/a's choice to work more or not.
3. Contract (B) nominate 12 days of their choosing as a minimum.
4. They can’t do more than 6 in a row – just like us
5. They are paid at present $27.84 + DTA (same rate as us)
6. They get overtime @ time and a half and double time
7. They have the same duty times as us
8. They have the same rest times as us
9. Yes the B rosters do look more like a RSV line with no pay guarantee, but one can assume thats because they're CASUALS.

I STILL don’t get the (SMH worthy) story in all this. MAM are casual, casual in any industry is not consistent and lawfully set up that way. I could understand if we were talking about minimum wage and conditions, but its not. The issue for the B's has nothing to do with their T&C's its about the lack of work or work guarantee.....I think we can safely say it’s legal otherwise the industrial relations commission wouldn’t have ratified it. Having said that, I’ll stay tuned with interest to any law suit casualvermin manages to bring on.

Yesterday my crew and I said it was obviously LH feeding the press and wouldn't you know it, we were right on the money. We now know (thanks to Edens post) their spoiling for "joint ticket" in the delegate elections. One union would be better to look after everyone, but one union headed up by the likes of MM and SR would be a living nightmare. Management hate them and quite frankly the crew at SH aren't far behind that, yes there are a few impressed with their "tough talk", yet EVERYONE AGREES, they actually ACHIEVE NOTHING where sh faaa at least do. Whether you prefer that approach, to cosy or not, most flight attendants want a union that can negotiate and talk to their employer and that’s not anyone at the LH FAAA. They have none and bucklies of getting SH crew to believe they are the better option. The reality is they wouldn't be able to cap or control the number of casuals, for the same reason sh faaa cant, because its illegal to do so. Thats right, ILLEGAL to restrict the use of a casual workforce - (thanks again Johnny) nor can anyone force Qantas to make them permanent.

In a pathetic attempt to talk up their abilities Eden says himself ….The extraordinary attack by Qantas on L/H FAAA , by press release further demonstrates the effectiveness of the L/H FAAA attack over the whole issue…. Exactly what effectiveness was that ? MM got his name in the paper and EFFECTIVELY pi$$ed off a senior exec to the point of press release, BUT THAT’S IT, the redundancies are still going ahead are they not ? More bleating, more bone pointing but nothing changing. Do they honestly think people are stupid enough to believe they’ve actually DONE anything????. These are not the people to look after our future that’s for sure, quite apart from Edens assertion here, they are completely ineffective and we all know it. At the end of the day we want results and its obvious the only thing LH FAAA ever produce is a whole lot of bluff and bull$hit along their name and latest rant in the paper.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

galleyslag

22nd Apr 2007, 01:40

Happy I think you've taken this a little to heart, this is just a forum where anybody can post.

If the casuals were going to do anything about their conditions, luv they would have done it long ago.

By your over reaction you are giving credit to it all.

By the way the 3% is in line with CPI, it is not really a pay increase.

When publicized(back to AN) do you mean like the 90day cap on VR?

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 01:59

roamingwolf.......please read my post 73. its all about changing your mind and at that time that you dont want to play you are then being deprived of youre liberty. its conditional....no drinking per 24 hour period.......120 mins from airport to be sent anywhere in the world with the understanding that it may and has been less....24 hours ie you could be called at 0300 or 2130 at night,,both of which have happened.....at the time of not being willing to do this but have to still comply means these conditions of being casa compliant,,,company compliant,,,,rested every hour of the clock(as if thats possible),,,packed for canberra or india,,,,close to work on max ready mode,,,all for free against youre will. YOU ARE WORKING FOR FREE NOTHING! please ask some questions if you have any because id like your thoughts and not miss hiccup whos gunna say this is a happy happy joy joy fun fun thing casuals have lived for for years...please! and you fly??? thanks gigs.

Happicampa

22nd Apr 2007, 02:03

galleyslag

You say over-reaction ... perhaps...... but if the discussion centers around colluson and illegal work conditions all of which are apparently newsworthy etc.... I thought some facts might be interesting. I take your point though.

I don't have any idea what the AN 90 day cap on VR thing is ....

Happicampa

22nd Apr 2007, 02:06

No gigs, not at all, I can't remember once saying that any of this was ideal, but then again, don't let the truth get in the way of good post. What I will say is once the company make them not required it is then their CHOICE to stay available under all the conditions you so rightly explain...........The alternative is to stay unavailable to Qantas and do what you like !

ditzyboy

22nd Apr 2007, 03:02

Why aren't we pushing for a united union?

Why aren't we having more say? Why isn't our opinion being taken seriously by the union?

Posts on Pprune and individual phone calls and emails are not going to achieve much.

There is just too much indifference and putting things in the too hard basket - especially at Short Haul. How will things ever change with the current attitude? They won't. And the above is pure optimism.

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 03:04

my post levitates toward when as a free person in our society not covered by youre eba by definition of youre status as a casual you exercise youre CHIOCE to not be available when you have made yourself available after being nreq. and then qantas wont allow you to change that status by threat of the security and sability of youre employment as a casual employee...........thats what i invite comment on only miss hiccup....please excuse any spealling errors n typing thanks gigs Would you work for free its a genuine question and concerns me as qantas are achieving a percentile of free reserve by this. cheers and any help would be great gigs

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 03:24

maybe miss hiccup has a thinking cap on for a while to reply to the above..DITZY would you work for free ? LOWERLOBE i know casuals seem to not count to you but would you work for free? cause they wont wont you on standby if some kid will do it for free! miss hiccup is still thinking about it! its not personal guys not trying to offend only to find out! thanks gigs

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 03:46

miss hiccup you write a post to compare the conditions for employment that the casuals get compared to full time........casuals earn about 10-12000 less by comparison for the same full time roster if you can comare the absence of sick leave 6 weeks paid holiday and work structure/security and stability makes in my book no comparison its just a nice job for those guys and a weekly wage if they can get it. thanks gigs

Happicampa

22nd Apr 2007, 05:04

gigs, there you go again misquoting me.

Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story" ... were my exact words not a comparison between there's and ours.

And I might respond to your other post if I understood it ! Do you drink ?

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 05:31

anybody else not understand my posts? good political response miss hiccup may i ask the question are you a union rep s/h? i fly i drink no more or less than any other chicky babe! cheers lov the spin gigs.

Pegasus747

22nd Apr 2007, 05:53

i havent posted for quite some time as i have been content to watch the goings on in here with some amusement and interest.

Its dissappoiting that the LH/SH FAAA debate rages on while rome burns. The real issue here is that while we squabble the company drives a wedge between the workers in Qantas.

Its easy to point the bone and try to see where "original sin" started but that is not going to solve the problems.

As h/campa or DM from the FAAA domestic division says.. The company hate the LOng Haul FAAA. The reality is..they hate all unions. They probably just hate the Long HAul FAAA more than most.

I guess its a bit like being a KAPO in a concentration camp being an FAAA official that constantly agrees with anything to keep the peace with Qantas or to be Liked.

The reality is that the current FAAA LH officials were elected on a platfrom of reversing the failures of the previous EBA and that is what they have done.

Whether there is deception or duplicity of the part of SH official is moot, the reality is NOW and we they must do jointly to protect the working conditions of ALL Qantas group flight attendants.

As someone who has been around a while i have heard the internal bickering from ALL unions for years. Its not just common to the FAAA all unions have internal flights over direction and policies. Some are more pragmatic than others.

At the moment the SH crew have the advantage of being cheaper and more productive that LH crew as the LH FAAA have pointed out. The only way that LH could effectively fight back would be to undercut SH as they did to LH.

I recall being at a meeting last year where MM said that was not a sensible strategy for any union as it would just end up in a spiral to the bottom.

For LH crew its about making ourselves more effecient and trying to hang on to core conditions without resorting to screwing over other flight attendants in the Qantas group.

Thats the essence of the dilemna for LH crew. So when i see the LH FAAA make media comment about the outrage of what qantas is doing i dont criticize them. I understand their frustration.

I dont critisize Doug Cameron, Or Greg Combet or even Kevin Rudd either for critisizing Qantas. But clearly the FAAA domestic division believe thats just grandstanding and achieves nothing.

Just like those that didnt speak up in NAZI germany when they came for their neighbours , when the NAZI's came for them there was no one to speak up.

If the FAAA SH strategy is just to be the last standing when they come for them then at least i understand that strategy. I dont agree with it but i understand.

For my part as a crew member with 15 years service who would like to get to 20, i would like to think that we could stand together.

Thats why despite the obvious differences between the FAAA SH and LH i dont care who heads a united union. I only care that we are united because devided we will fail.

Dont let the rhetoric about who is leaking what to the media distract you. The SMH does its own investigations i would imagine. I would suggest that if there is nothing to hide then the FAAA domestic will come out of it as clean as a whistle.

For what its worth Maurice Alexander was an outstanding union official and many of the conditions that SH and LH crew enjoy were as a result of the work he did for years working with former unions officials. John Playford and other LH and SH officials and employess have workder tirelessly for the collective good of all crew.

Their involvment in business either conected with the SH FAAA or not will not make a bit of difference to me to be quite honest. What the Media prints makes entertaining and thought provoking reading but at the end of the day i am only interested in the working conditions and job security of myself and other Qantas Cabin Crew.

a word of advice to FAAA officials of both divisions. Get of the cross we need the wood!!!!!!

get on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants job security. YOUR loyalties should be with the members not the current employess or officials. You are all replaceable and no one is indespensible.

Get your acts together fast OUR livelihoods depend on it. We will not be patient forever

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 07:57

thanks for your post peg. news articles are aways interestig to someone and embarassing to others even flight attendants. however facts are facts and the article has printed facts so why hasnt qantas mam or short haul people from the faaa said much? why? i myself dont like press on qantas to much attention to close to home for this girl but if i was publicly accused of something i guess i would need to defend myself in public! thanks for posting gigs.

casualvermin

22nd Apr 2007, 07:59

Whilst the two unions don't actually seemed to be interested in the casual conditions, you should be if you want your job:
1. a casual earn $15000 less per annum on same hours(at least)
2. the NREQ change to AV means casuals are doing FREE home reserve, something some of you get paid $600 a week for (1:3 for 12 hour home reserve)
3. Casuals do favors to get good flying
4. Casuals are getting trip that are not in open time or in Bid book
5. casuals are so compliant they will do anything for mam/qf
6. 700+ casuals coupled with o/s bases- we are pretty good strike breakers and we'll probably sign anything if it meant getting paid this month
Your Safety:
1. sitting on block of AV days does not give adequet rest
2. high hours and back to back earlies and BOC
Does anybody still no get it?
Our EBA does not end until 2009 and can have amendments made.

lowerlobe

22nd Apr 2007, 08:16

casualvermin....I could not agree more about the conditions for casuals being atrocious.However the part that I find particularly nauseating are the people allowing it.

L1A

22nd Apr 2007, 08:38

Pegasus 747 & Casualvermin 2003 stop work for QANTAS long haul......MAM f/as released to do long haul contracts MAM says ok, FAAA says scabs, :eek:

Problem seems that its the same office ie. :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: Union and employer same person????? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pegasus747

22nd Apr 2007, 09:21

The diiference between the casuals in Long Haul some time ago, and the MAM casuals in short haul now are that the LH casuals were part of the LONG HAUL EBA. Same conditions and rates of pay. Only difference being that they were genuine casuals.

In short haul the C scale casuals are being used as a substitute full time work force. It's totally immoral.

I understand the plight of the casuals, and i am aware that many of them have contacted their own union (SH FAAA ) and made their displeasure known.

I think that we ALL have a responsibility to ensure that casuals are not used to undermine full time employment and full time employees.

I think that casuals have their uses in peaks and troughs but not as a substitute full time work force.

The short haul faaa cannot regulate the numbers of casuals now its too late under the current laws. But a vote for RUDD will at least change the laws back a little to perhaps they can. and also allow the LH FAAA to keep a lid on the use of overseas based crew.

As for the papers and the so called facts that they have printed are yet to be proven but it does make interesting reading at the moment

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 10:03

thanks again for posting peg. in consideration of the last few posts and i dont know how but maybe you could help casuals so they in turn can help you at long haul and protect us at short haul..cause the casual work force cant help you to help them and us.....thanks gigs ps given posts and facts the reading is far from interesting its dam upsetting!

DEFCON4

22nd Apr 2007, 10:38

I would like some SOB(s)to be held accountable for this bloody fiasco...even if it is "moot".
I had my life and my family`s organized around what I thought were stable future earnings.
I am in my mid forties with three kids and a mortgage.Trying to come up with alternatives to something that I have been doing for(well) for eighteen years is not easy.
The history of Qantas Cabin Crew is littered with Union mistakes ineptitude and personal agendas...the swine running MAM being one.
I will survive but it wont be without some angst.
If there is "Karma" I hope it takes care of contemptible bastards.

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 11:57

hiccup you dont understand my post re. free feserve. invitation, if you wish i can articulate myself just as an industrial relations barrister would. you can then take this info to youre corp solicitor and comment, be aware that in this public forum you need be deadly accurate ,go for it gigs ps maybe at least then we all can understand....try the spin opion some kids buy it but be aware of youre CHOICE here.

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 12:07

go for it babes i mean person good luc!

lowerlobe

22nd Apr 2007, 21:17

I have just got home and finally got to read the article in Saturday’s SMH and I’m with happicampa and don’t understand all the fuss.

Contract “C” casuals get 3 days off per month which I think is very charitable since 2 would have been more than adequate.The fact that they have to be on call for the rest is perfectly ok.

Also a non- profit company with union directors that makes nearly half a mill by supplying cheap labour makes perfect sense.

The only thing I want to know is how can I get into the action here.There seems to be a ready market for supplying cheap labour and the only drawback is that I have to be a union official first.I’ll have to get my resume over to the union as soon as possible.

Of course I would much prefer to set up a company to supply cheap ,casual directors to Australian company’s who would readily agree to anything that the CEO would suggest or maybe casual politicians who would agree to what large company’s want.That would go way beyond “COSY’ wouldn’t it.

ps ...Is it just me or does anyone else have problems understanding gigs?:confused:

Perhaps this is a result of the latest generation's predilection for using sms texting as their preferred method of communication.....Ahh the digital age with the loss of written correspondence and hand writing without a spell checker as a form of communication...

gigs

22nd Apr 2007, 22:56

bravo good witty post lowerlobe. yes h/campa also has a problem understanding me or anyone else including you who knocks the cult! cheers and you even said my name woo hoo! gigs

capt.cynical

23rd Apr 2007, 00:03

"if you wish i can articulate myself just as an industrial relations barrister would.":ugh: :mad:

ROFLMAO

:D

gigs

23rd Apr 2007, 01:04

sorry big boy i meant to write tickle, ah stand by, gear up and fly away home big fella. thanks for the funny post. gigs

lowerlobe

23rd Apr 2007, 04:02

gigs, do you mind me asking if you are on any substance?

Anyway,back to the matter at hand.Perhaps if there are a number of MAM casuals and S/H crew who are unhappy with their representation they might consider joining the FAAA L/H.

If there comes a point where the S/H FAAA does not have sufficient members then they become irrelevant !

gigs

23rd Apr 2007, 04:26

My understanding Mr Lowerlobe is that you're Short Haul colleagues are not able to join the Long Haul FAAA so this is not at this time an option. Yes i am a person of substance just as concerned as you are about the way working conditions for Australians is heading in flying especially. Ironic we share the same concerns yet you choose to mock. Thankyou for you're concern. gigs

DEFCON4

23rd Apr 2007, 05:03

If you read some of Gigs' posts you will fast come to the conclusion that he/she is either schizophrenic or occasionally Gigs' three year old has a crack at using mummy/daddy's computer with interesting results

gigs

23rd Apr 2007, 05:35

if you read some of gigs posts and some others here you may conclude PROPAGANDA...........ive a dodgy old key board and no secretary.....what i write should not be too hard to read given the content ,which leads me to direct attention to the above.......you shall get no more bites from me in relation to my posts....dont like it ,cant read it,dont waste the energy.. happy flying

samford

23rd Apr 2007, 05:56

Gigs, the content of your posts aside, it's also the lack of punctuation that makes them difficult to read.

casualvermin

23rd Apr 2007, 12:28

It is always hard to understand something that you don't have much interest in in the first instance. MAM didn't hires us to tickle anyway.

Four classes started in last tow weeks in Syd, one in Mel. Roughly 15 a class, how many VR spots?

Back to free reserve, the point is that you lot are missing is that FAAA allow this in our EBA2 part 5.4. . We used to have the option pre2006 that by 2000hrs if the next day was still just AV crewing had to make us NREQ/UNAV. Then they worked out that casuals can't tickle and will bend over backwards if it means they are in with a chance of going "permanent".

Our EBA lets us become slaves:ugh:

On union membership, l/h faaa won't take us, it is a boys club thing.Something my wife says is rampent in all industries. SO my guess is that it won't change, maybe we'll start our own association?

Happicampa

23rd Apr 2007, 13:43

Pegasus you said

a word of advice to FAAA officials of both divisions. Get of the cross we need the wood!!!!!!

get on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants job security. YOUR loyalties should be with the members not the current employess or officials. You are all replaceable and no one is indespensible.

Get your acts together fast OUR livelihoods depend on it. We will not be patient forever

Surely this is directed solely at your union? Is it not your union that continues to get sidetracked by the infantile lure of tacky journalism ? Not only are they content to cash in on their "frequent quoters program" with the SMH and take advantage of their "free story print on a slow news day" as a reward for their umpteenth quote with the fairfax group, but also think nothing of toying with the hopes of a group of workers by giving them the advice that “media exposure” would help. All the while knowingly using them as pawns in a game of cheap publicity and mud slinging.

Still not content they waste more time, effort and energy reproducing this “trashy rag” reporting on their website under the guise of membership information..... all while rome burns, as you so aptly put it.

Meanwhile over at sh faaa they put out the following advice their THEIR members 5 days ago.

The need for solidarity amongst our membership is not only critical for the challenges of the Qantas sale, but in dealing with the disgraceful Work Choices Legislation, introduced by the Federal Government.

Therefore rather than rumours, gossip, good or otherwise, we strongly recommend all members read the front page article of the Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday April 17, 2007 on “How AWA’s Strip Workers Rights”. This sobering account should reinforce for all concerned, the need for solidarity, moving together and protection of Enterprise Agreements.

Pegasus I think you were trying for the same message but they said it better, then again, they usually do.

The exhibited behaviour of the two divisions over the last couple of days should leave no flight attendant in doubt on who is actually “getting on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants’ job security” and who is running the rhetoric.

gigs

23rd Apr 2007, 14:26

um, so does that mean free standby is ok??????????with the s/h faaa that is! you jd or dm cant explian youself that free reserve is ok so given the facts one may ask WHATS IN IT FOR THE FAAA! again i invite you to ask me to answer any questions you may have but all you can ask is "do i drink"?

lowerlobe

23rd Apr 2007, 21:27

Pegasus...

Obviously you are right and happi is one of the elected officials in the Judas division.

happi..How many days do you get off per roster?

I bet it's more than 3........

This reminds me of one of those TV shows on nature and there was a nest of some kind of creature out in the wild somewhere.

They found that given half a chance one of the young eats the rest of it's siblings because it's not content just to survive but it wants all the food the parents can supply....very cosy wouldn't you say?

Quote from happi "The exhibited behaviour of the two divisions over the last couple of days should leave no flight attendant in doubt on who is actually “getting on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants’ job security” and who is running the rhetoric"...

Which is really a sick joke because it's obvious who are being protected because all you have to do is ask any casual,L/H or VB crew and they will tell you it's not them.

Pegasus747

23rd Apr 2007, 21:48

Happi Campa,

I think it would be fair to say that the recent media spotlight on some of the activities of the domestic regional FAAA has brought you out of your hole in the ground.

Your first and only post has been to attack the long haul FAAA and to defend the actions of the short haul FAAA. As an employee of the union your actions are laudable and loyal.

Unfortunately, your views of the long haul division have not been mirrored by any facts. The LH division deal with issues on a day to day basis. They have never had an EBA rejected. Let alone by 90%. the domestic arm of the FAAA has now had two proposed EBAs rejected. That smacks of couple of things. one of them gross incompetence and the other completely out of touch with the members.

The long haul flight attendants still enjoy the best conditions of any of the crew in the australian flying community. THAT and that alone is the problem.

They are the most expensive. The only way forward is for us to become more comparable in cost to others in the Qantas group. The challenge is doing that whilst still keeping core conditions that are important.

I guess we could do that many ways as a group. I do not favour the one that means that we sell out our collegues in short haul or do the dirty in negotiations with the DOM Reg FAAA. I dont think its the way LOng Haul crew have ever behaved nor would we want out union to behave that way. Long Haul crew and their officials have enormous challenges and like many in the union movement have used the media to make the rest of Australia aware of what work choices is producing.

Quite frankly i think that the media is an efective tool in educating Australia about work choices. I am sure it doesnt make unions officials popular with Airline execs, but i am sure that without the assistance of the media only a very small percentage of australia will know whats going on.

Lowerlobe has suggested that our Union should open its books to anyone from MAM that wants to join or short haul members. I think thats an interesting proposal. I think that the Long Haul FAAA has three qualified Lawyers on the staff who earn considerably less than some of the short haul staff with considerably less experience and qualifications.

I think that our priority as members should be ensuring that we employ fully qualified people to deal with the complexity of workchoices and a skills audit would be a good thing is a new combined union.

If Happi Campa is reflective of the prejudices of the short haul officials and staff against the LH division then this is probably the reason that they cant get back together.

I have only heard positive things from the LH FAAA and its members about one union combined. It seems the problems are the short haul end.

Perhaps if it doesnt go ahead that each division should just open up the books to whoever wants to join which division and see who survives. for my money i would rather be represented by three qualified lawyers than an ex receptionist who cant get an EBA voted up by more than 10% of the members

lowerlobe

23rd Apr 2007, 22:00

Pegasus...

Perhaps we should call S/H the omelette division as well because after 90% of VB crew told their union where to go there would have been a lot of union officials with egg on their faces.

It's hard to understand how a union could get it so wrong and try to push something so unpopular with crew.Then again maybe they wanted another cosy relationship.

Pegasus,If there is a tacit agreement between the two divisions about poaching members I think you can safely say theat it is null and void because of the behaviour of the judas/omelette division.

However ,I think there is nothing more to say in regards to the other group especially as we approach ANZAC day.

Pegasus,do you know of any changes to the pub in LHR?

Happicampa

23rd Apr 2007, 22:40

AHH Peg/Eden, there you go again, more bleating, more bone pointing and now personal attacks on sh's ex secretary. Meanwhile nothing achieved other than to lay a veiled threat against her employment under a reunited union. I'm sure she'd be extremely worried if she knew, in fact i'll give her a call today to make sure she does.

Perhpas its A.D.D. that you are so easily distracted from doing what you were elected to do

sydney s/h

23rd Apr 2007, 23:04

Peg 747,

lets see when December rolls around if "long haul flight attendants still enjoy the best conditions of any of the crew in the australian flying community"

I hope they do. Goodluck - you'll need it.

roamingwolf

23rd Apr 2007, 23:11

Sydney s/h If we have any problems with our eba it will be because of what your union has done.We might need good luck but what we really need is for the domestic union to stop white anting us.
happicampa someone asked how many days a month you get of and i didn't see you answer it.

LL I like the bit about the ommelette division and there is nothing better than a cosy ommelette

samford

23rd Apr 2007, 23:20

Happicampa - Veiled threat? What are you on about? I'll call her and let her know if you like, she knows exactly how I feel about the association. I'd jump accross to the LH union in a flash if I had the chance. When was the last time the SH FAAA went on record about any of the issues we face?

Your views do not represent the majority of us in SH.

galleyslag

24th Apr 2007, 01:56

Employers need valid reason to sack: PM

Email (http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupEmailArticle.pl?path=/articles/2007/04/24/1177180614533.html)
Print (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Employers-need-valid-reason-to-sack-PM/2007/04/24/1177180614533.html#)
Normal font (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Employers-need-valid-reason-to-sack-PM/2007/04/24/1177180614533.html#)
Large font (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Employers-need-valid-reason-to-sack-PM/2007/04/24/1177180614533.html#)
April 24, 2007 - 11:04AM

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Employers cannot use operational reasons as a justification to sack workers only to re-advertise the same position at lower salary, Prime Minister John Howard says.
His comments follow a landmark Australian Industrial Relations Commission ruling reported in News Ltd newspapers that the government's Work Choices legislation had given companies broader grounds to sack workers under the guise of operational reasons.
"The question of a valid reason need not be considered when an argument is advanced regarding the termination being for operational reason, or reasons that included operational reasons," the AIRC found.
The ruling related to a dispute between retail chain Priceline and former employee Andrew Cruickshank, 42, who was made redundant in November only to have his position advertised and filled at a lower salary.
Mr Howard said companies always had been able to make employees redundant if their position was no longer needed.
However, he said the definition of operational reasons did not extend to sacking workers simply to employ someone at a lower rate.
"Operational reasons are not and should never be seen as code for saying `I will get rid of X because I'm paying him $100,000 a year so I can employ Y at $80,000 a year'," Mr Howard told ABC radio in Brisbane.
"There has to be a bona-fide operational reason and that of course has always been in the law."
© 2007 AAP (http://www.smh.com.au/notebn/aap.html)
I guess labour hire is different? (http://www.smh.com.au/notebn/aap.html)

gigs

24th Apr 2007, 02:11

interesting galleyslag because contract b casuals are almost getting 50% less hours whilst contract c casuals are getting much more comparing equal available status and new ones still coming online. thanks gigs

lowerlobe

24th Apr 2007, 02:23

Gigs,

I think you have a valid point not only in relation to the post by galleyslag but also from the point of view of the conditions that MAM casuals generally are employed under.I think you should be contacting the journo that wrote the article in last Saturday's SMH.

The other point is that under Howard casuals are able to be emplyed full time where as before they had to be put on a full time basis after working a set time.

gigs

24th Apr 2007, 03:33

thanks for posting lowerlobe,i know its not allowed by qantas to talk work to media so im a little afraid of my job and am not the type who likes attention at all.......i post on here in this instance to see if anyone has a view and or angle that what casuals do is unfair,unlawfull, or, just plain not equitable...... what is of concern is that h/campa cant or will not answer my question,why? thanks gigs

Pegasus747

24th Apr 2007, 07:51

24 April, 2007 QF12-07
FAAA - FUTURE DIRECTION
As you are aware, there have been discussions recently between both divisions of the FAAA regarding the future direction of the union.
As recently as March, I invited the Secretary of the International Division, Michael Mijatov to address our annual Divisional Council in response to our interdivisional proposal.
Divisional Council endorsed further discussions in an effort to forge a relationship that results in one union.
Prior to me taking leave for the month of April, Michael and I agreed that on my return, we would make time to progress these critical discussions.
Given this, upon my return from overseas, I found it extremely disappointing that there have been a variety of opinions expressed by various parties that could be divisive and destabilising for the organisation as a whole.
As I have expressed before, this is a critical time for cabin crew given the Federal Government WorkChoices, the uncertainty of the Qantas takeover and the reality of new carriers both domestically and internationally.
We must not be sidetracked from achieving a united union. We must work together to ensure our future. I am reminded of an FAAA election campaign in the 1990s, “One Union – One Future”. A continuation of the two divisions may result in no future.
Let your elected officials from both Divisions move forward to achieve this for the benefit of all members regardless of Division.
This newsletter was written and authorised by Jo Ann Davidson, Divisional Secretary

It would seem that while the cat was away the mice have played. About time Jo Ann put her house in order i would have thought. despite criticism in here most that know Jo Ann have found her an extrement decent person.

Lets give her a chance to get her Division into line. and lets not forget that the head of the organisation that led the charge on LH conditions is no longer with the SH Union. Unless he popped up at QF or MAM lol i would think that the SH/LH FAAA working together has to be a good thing.

I would be interested to hear from the LH officials.....????

casualvermin

24th Apr 2007, 10:06

Well I am not at all interested in the two joining:= . FAAA Intl should open their doors to the rest of the flying community. MAM/DJ/JQ/NJS/QF S/H.

I think Syd S/H has a very marginal point of view. That of the old TAA ladies. Well the Puck stops here!

And why are we still hanging out with the techies? I though MAM were cabin crew? Won't be long before MAM supply pilots though :E

L1A

24th Apr 2007, 12:01

Peg Hi!.& great post

But given the sum total of facts that exist, how could SH and LH unions join forces without being "contaminated" ?:oh:

Thanks my future and yours may depend on this!

gigs

24th Apr 2007, 12:32

all very interesting stuff and its relative to a perception of reality we all have and what that perception is ie. for example DEFCON4 may have their shirts ironed for them by their mum who they live with and that way its easier to iron them in the hotels,more time to concentrate on how to fly the plane as a second officier cool! god knows every other day i iron a b/shirt for my hubbey.i guess its one way for DEFCON4 to profess an insecurity on this site.but, the reallity of real and whats happpening is i suppose is facts!!!!!!!!! talk to some degree and the facts!!!!!!!!!!!! speak for them selfs would you not think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!gigs 2 unions = 1 the facts say very suss!!!!!!!!!!!!gigs

gigs

24th Apr 2007, 13:34

yow defcon4 whos yah daddy capt.c now thats very very suss boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doofus

25th Apr 2007, 06:17

Are we talking about the same union that went to it's AN members telling them to vote yes on their last EBA that took their base rate from $46,000 to $58,000 when the company was actually screaming about their dire financial situation?.I'm sure the airline collapsed only weeks later and the first thing the government blamed the collapse on were the high structured wages...Yet another cover-up that could come back to haunt them....Ooooooh,scary!:{

Doofus

25th Apr 2007, 08:02

I have one solution to fix this problem that is blowing out of control...Do as the USA do to their enemies and cut-off their funds.I for one am strongly contemplating withdrawing my union fees as I feel our fees are not being used to fight for it's members.

If the FAAA International had any commonsense,and believe in what's right for their members,they would approach a more reputable union asking if they can startup their own CabinCrew branch.

Hit them where it hurts....Don't want do fight for us then find your own income:D

lexus1

25th Apr 2007, 08:05

and they caused climate change

and they killed JR

roamingwolf

25th Apr 2007, 08:08

I reckon the idea of one union is a good one but the taa old girls club would be almost impossible to deal with.
I supose we have to try because one union would be harder for geoff to deal with than 2 smaller ones.
lets see how the s/h union deals with the virgin crew and their eba.That way well know how cosy they are with the emplyers.

i don't know about jr but they were to blame for the dinosaurs :E

L1A

25th Apr 2007, 08:18

Doofus, Hi!

Didn’t the FAAA SH setup Flightforce... M.A company around that time ?

L1A

:D

roamingwolf

25th Apr 2007, 08:21

Cosy .... Cosy .....Cosy....

Doofus

25th Apr 2007, 09:05

Hangon a minute...Was it the FAAA or Maurice that setup FlightForce or are they one?.Now I really do feel like a Doofus!.Guess that explains why people are complaining so much about FAAA S/H.There should be an independant investigation into the FAAA S/H as there are so many questions that need answering...I say PROVIDE OR SLIDE !!!:O

gigs

25th Apr 2007, 10:34

peg says that jd is a nice person which i dont doubt but when my partner read ages ago about london base opening people used to go nuts from long haul about it on prune( o/s labour) london crew have been described as scabs by senior l/h crew to me( maybe bitter n twisted ) given all this does anyone have thoughts on jd going to london? pls dont bite me im a s/haul lass and am interested in what you l/haul guys n girls think.thanks gigs

cartexchange

26th Apr 2007, 00:57

gigs
I'm sure you have some valid points, but I simply cannot read your posts.
I will direct you to a site that teaches grammar,spelling and punctuation.

http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp

gigs

26th Apr 2007, 01:09

Att.Miss Cartgirl. I will "direct you" or rather "please mam" read this....Thanks,I feal sure you are trying to help but maybe this excess energy could be directed to better use. Thats if you can understand what is being typed that is! Please read post 135 then,have a go at 154 and 155 maybe you boys all "hang out"together Thanks Happy Teaching but maybe you need some youself if you can not understand the kid's assignments! gigs

casualvermin

26th Apr 2007, 01:57

Perhaps the lack of understanding comes in three parts; l/h cc are jet lagged from doing their Per returns; gigi is fatigued fro being on free 24 hr home reserve or crewing conned her into 12 min rest after the PVG; you don't really care about whats happening with casuals undercutting your jobs.

Anyway I am outraged with ALP wanting to can IRC, for a super power that you can visit at the mall. What kind of dill wants to work at mall? Imagine you have a real problem. The person who could help you out is now in a high powered city job in a very big building and some clapped out prozac swilling legal studies school teacher is at the mall to sort out why you are working for free on an AV day that you can't change, because even though we call you CASUAL, you are not, you are a lower paid industrial tool. Whom no one wants to acknowledge or has the balls to take it on.

I want a "mentor" for my EP training. What an unfair advantage. Meanwhile the 18yr old who is far too young to perv on, but I do, is spilling drinks and chewing gum and I am now doing more work - when I can get it. :*

gigs

26th Apr 2007, 02:12

you sound just like my husband at the mall.slap slap slap! see its a start miss cartexchange sort of like cat cat cat! gigs

cartexchange

26th Apr 2007, 04:58

Gigs I was trying to help!

another question
Is English your second language?

galleyslag

26th Apr 2007, 05:56

Enough about grammar. Welcome to the generation Y age and go get a blog. What on earth does all this mean? We have a dodgy union, I am going to Bom tomorrow when I just want to have a stage in DRW. I am beginning to think that perhaps it is not just the casuals they are getting a cut of.

gigs

26th Apr 2007, 11:15

cart girl CAN YOU fxxxxing read?????????????????? stick to cosmo & w/weekly and youll be fine darls!!!!!!!!!!!! Try to help youself first girlfriend.

gigs

26th Apr 2007, 11:48

congrats. galleyslag at least you can read!

casualvermin

26th Apr 2007, 12:10

Sorry guys it takes a while for the penny to drop:
How is this for a conspiracy theory, pprune syle
MA and union are in bed, yes.
Union bought by QF to run AN into runway.
I can see it. QF knew one more wage increase good be the straw. Pay off for union - a cut of the casuals to start, then a cut in the saving of S/H doing Reg flying. All of the sudden I can see.... 5 cougars thanks!
Any better theories?

gigs

26th Apr 2007, 12:25

problem seems to be so many dont get it at all until i guess its to late for all of us thanks for posting cv.

galleyslag

27th Apr 2007, 12:28

Got it. C under cut B, B under cut A, cas undercut perm, s/h undercut l/h. So like why has nothing been done? Why are CC powerless?
There are nearly 1200 casuals, what are you lot doing? SOme of you must have been industry exposed? Yet like why have you been :mad: :mad:? Come on? Share! Casuals are gutless. Oh Oh if i just take it up the back :mad:, I might just get a permanent possie, if I just suck some yoohoo I'LL GET regional flying. Yep you've really helped yourselves progress:D Bring on contract FFF! Now thats team work and I am leader!!!!!!!

stubby jumbo

27th Apr 2007, 12:51

Can some one move this thread along with some form of literacy.

I feel like I'm sitting watching ROMPER ROOM.

"Hello Mr Doo-Beee!!"

:rolleyes:

gigs

27th Apr 2007, 14:27

very helpfull!!!!!!!!! last two posts spend about 5 mins. and read the content read the two smh articles think about v big picture good luc we shall all need it!

The The

28th Apr 2007, 04:56

So much has been written about the negative impact of having a casual workforce, and the short haul union's roll. No one has mentioned the huge benefits that casual F/A's have brought to the permanent short haul group.

Prior to the introduction of casuals, there were several hundred F/A's in short haul who were desperate for part time positions. Also everyone was wanting flexible working arrangements, ie the ability to drop trips that you did not want to do, reduce your working hours to fit in with family responsibilities etc. Basically if there was a trip on your roster which you were unable to do due to lack of childcare, or an important engagement, you should be able to drop it unpaid. There was enormous pressure on the company and the union to provide a much more flexible work place.

Over the last couple of EBA's, (along with the employment of casuals), part time has been offered to everyone in short haul, and every F/A working a full time roster has the ability to 'dump' any trip on their roster (down to 85hrs) to be picked up by the casual workforce. This has been an enormous win for all those FA's with family commitments, or anyone who basically wants to have a life outside flying.

The offset of increasing flexibilities in our working lives is having casuals. If 100 FA's want to get rid of their trips on new years day, we need 100 casuals to pick up these trips!!

:ugh:
And on another note, I am sick and tired of hearing that short haul undercut long haul on international routes. We work under totally different awards with totally different conditions. I don't know how much long haul FA's get paid, but even if it were $100 an hour, I still would not and could not fly under the Long Haul award. To offset the higher pay, long haulers have to do 56 day reserve periods where they have no idea what they will be doing, fly as far as Europe and adjust to different time zones, and can be turned around upline during a trip, which may infringe their days off. They can also be away from home for 2 weeks at a time. Their working conditions are much harder on their personal lives, and family commitments.

Short haul may be paid a slightly lower wage, but to offset we have much more family friendly working conditions. No short haul FA ever has to do a reserve span (casuals do reserve for us). We can't be rostered to work more than 6 days in a row, we don't fly through time zones more than about 4 hours from EST and we have very flexible working arrangements.
So you need to look past the bottom dollar figure at the package as a whole and decide which award is better. Hundreds of long haul FA's have transferred to short haul in the last few years, so I guess they made that decision for themselves.

I am not affiliated with the short haul union in any way, other than paying my fees. However I do not think that they have done as bad a job as everyone here is making out.

gigs

28th Apr 2007, 06:31

The problem is The The is that you are being asked to think and try to experience a vicarious reality. What is valued by full time staff can be at the expense of casual staff. What has been implemented in part by FAAA assitance for full time short haul staff has been the profit of whom? Well, Qantas has profited and, more casuals have been employed so does this mean that more people have jobs? Its in part the quality of that existance and at the cost to who is the question and, who benifits and profits from what has been put in place?

galleyslag

28th Apr 2007, 12:31

the the, I think you just clarified the MAM position albiet not the actual spirit of thread. Our conditions have improved at the determine of our casuals counter parts. 20 days per 28, plus 5 free home reserve. Yes we can dump, but how long will we be around if we are being undercut like this in black and white. Casual treatment is getting worse whilst the mothers club can go part time or dump to 85hrs. Do you think it is ok to superior in this way?

Gigs give up. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make the mule drink. Air hostesses are dumb by nature, s/h is just a mother club. Focused by Vercase sunnies in the white 4x4.

gigs

28th Apr 2007, 20:48

point taken. but many 4x4's in the car park are mat grey! thanks for taking the time to post.

The The

28th Apr 2007, 22:07

Galleyslag you wrote: Casual treatment is getting worse whilst the mothers club can go part time or dump to 85hrs.

Just remember that the casual EBA's are only voted on by casuals. Permanent crew have a separate EBA. In their last EBA the A and B casuals voted for future colleagues to be on contract C. I believe they received $1000 cash bonus for voting this EBA up.

DEFCON4

29th Apr 2007, 00:16

Negotiating an improvement in your circumstances is fine.
Doing so to the detriment of others is bastardry.
Dixon identified shorthaul as the weakest immoral link and began the race to bottom.

The The

29th Apr 2007, 06:37

Defcon4, it may be true that short haulers voted an EBA up that allowed for the introduction of casuals. However the casuals are on an hourly rate equivalent to (or in some cases more than) permanent crew. They are also represented by the same union as permanent short haul crew, who ensure that casuals work under the same rest break, rostering and duty hour limitations as everyone else.

In the past, long haulers obviously voted for an EBA which allowed for overseas bases. Do the crew based in Auckland and Bangkok receive the same hourly rate of pay as you? Do they work under the same rostering rules, duty time limitations etc????..........I think we all know the answer to that question. What was the long haul union's part in all of this?

L1A

29th Apr 2007, 07:12

Dear “The The” unusual name :D

As far as wage comparison goes, “The The” there is a difference between short haul permanent crew and casuals it’s a different job with a different job description with less pay, not more.:=

If you’re going to make an inaccurate statement like that on this site one would ask what your agenda or aim is? :=

Thanks Mr. "The the' or should I say "Mr.Pilot Pilot" ( Do you want your coffee NOW!, sir)

L1A

DEFCON4

29th Apr 2007, 07:41

LH did not vote for overseas bases.
What Qantas does offshore is beyond the jurisdiction of Australain based unions.
The union lobbied hard to obtain a cap on the bases..and was successful.
You need to think and read a little more about the circumstances before commenting on them

mach2male

29th Apr 2007, 08:06

"Qantas' cabin crew are professional, hard working and respected employees, and they deserve better than to have the Long Haul FAAA – an organisation that is supposed to represent them – circulating misleading and inaccurate information," Mr Borghetti said.
What the?
Dixon and Borghetti have maligned threatened and generally treated lognhaul crew with absolute contempt.
Now,when it suits his purpose Il Duce comes up with this little pearl.
What a sanctimonious hypocrite!

gigs

29th Apr 2007, 10:08

the the or as you may like my type style as v v please get youre facts correct before you try to misrepresent them. you are way off the mark. if you are a pilot stick to what you know best. cheers gigs

gigs

29th Apr 2007, 10:11

Mr Defcon4 i know youre thoughts on my apparent mental condition but may i ask what is the current cap on o/s bases now as to then secured by the l/h faaa ??????

DEFCON4

29th Apr 2007, 10:26

Before lobbying....unlimited
After lobbying......850 and one service a day to be operated by SYD crew to LHR

gigs

29th Apr 2007, 10:31

i will not be offended if you call me names but are you correct in 850 with current new laws in place?????????

Eden99

29th Apr 2007, 12:02

Perhaps before you post on here you should actually know what you are talking about, or is it that you are deliberately spreading nonsense??

Casuals are on an hourly rate below the lowest increment point in the S/H flight attendant category. If they received the same as permanent crew there would be no need for them.

I can't believe the nonsense and innaccurate information that people like you post in here.

L/H never voted to allow O/S based crew. Qantas didn't need or ask for their "permission". Qantas like any Company can merely employ O/S.

What L/H crew through the FAAA did was to cap the use of overseas crew.... something that the Howard laws have rendered obsolete.

samford

29th Apr 2007, 12:12

There is no point debating how the overseas bases are managed. Logic should prevail, overseas bases are out of the juristiction of Australian based unions.

MAM casuals are represented by an Aus based union and as such, I would expect any association representing my interests to work fully in it's jurisdiction, to do so.

As mentioned, when it was legal, a cap was secured after much lobbying from the FAAA.

The The, you talk of the MAM casuals providing the rest of us with FWA etc, and you are correct. However, this has merely further encouraged the company to beleive that we are dispensible, and shown us that our jobs are no more safe than they were previously.
We are stuck in a situation where we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. I am more interested in protecting our T & C's for the long term. Which means working as a full time employee without the ability to "pick and choose" the amount of hours I do.

casualvermin

30th Apr 2007, 12:03

Now let me point out the obvious. The 'casual' and/or under employment of the work force grows their conditions get worse. The ones who bebefit from them being their are the ones who dump hours or went part time. Those in middle seniority and those who don't dump - don't benefit. So it would seem a minority live the good life, a portion get no change, a portion get disadvantage and some have their condtions worsen.

No casual got to vote on their initial EBA in 2003[what about 2002] and in the 2006 EBA it only got up by 2%, and 100 didn't vote[we had to give staff # - some got scared and didn't vote].

Our representation is conflicted and bias.

Our EBA has been breached several times.

Meanwhile faaa thought contract C was a good thing. Let me see, 20 days[+5 a/v] of life a month with no pay guarantee, no say in days off, or trips, recieving $15000 less a year[if doing same f/t hrs]. 2006/7 VR will be replaced by an equal amount of contract C.

Union too busy fighting for FWA and a seniority to see what is going on is illegal, albeit in a legal loop-hole, no permanent position is safe whilst it can be replaced by an inferior, lower paid worker.

gigs

30th Apr 2007, 12:19

at least contract c do not have the choice of supplying a service to an employer for free!

call button

30th Apr 2007, 20:45

I was under the impression that casual crew are paid $27 per hour. (This amount has been posted on another thread).

The highest rate of pay for permanent cabin crew is $26 per hour. I think you need 10 years service to reach this increment. The starting salary is considerably less.

gigs

30th Apr 2007, 21:54

another techie who thinks they know it all. CASUALS are on the LOWEST rates. or sometimes no rates at all. thats part of what all these posts are about and who set up the system and who profits from it all?

lowerlobe

30th Apr 2007, 22:23

You might notice how the S/H union rep has AWOL from this thread and did not answer my question as to how many days permanent crew get off compared to the 3 days per month that "C" casuals get.This is what the union went along with as well.

The bottom line is that although the casuals were started with the idea of introducing flexibility into the workforce they are now being used to rid the company of full time cabin crew.The last thing the company wants is full time crew because we actually like the job and stick around and they can't have that can they?

So if "THE THE" and "call button" think that 3 days off per month is acceptable compared to what full time crew get then they can always apply.I'm sure that mam will always be interviewing especially after the VR packages.

gigs

30th Apr 2007, 22:35

Casualvermin you write the faaa is "conflicted & bias"...............well they are starting to sound like a joke or,is their inaction for a reason?????? still lots of questions but no answers! cheers gigs

casualvermin

1st May 2007, 00:24

The pay issue is more than an hourly rate. Permanent staff get a weekly wage(1st yr $596.9 up to 10th yr $844.8), a weekly allowance of $91.88 and band payments($2.03, some with 9 point value). Thee is also a pay guarantee of 140hours a month, with a requirement to only work 123hrs. IPD and D/O drafting.

GalleyHag

1st May 2007, 02:37

casualvermin

I can assure you the FAAA is not too busy fighting for FWA and seniority issues. They are too busy trying to find work for casual crew at the expense of permanent crew RE VR program.

You think your EBA has been breached, we have clauses which are breached on an on-going basis and what does the FAAA do send us notices with gems like "as recently as yesterday, problems with work available for distribution to Category C and B, MAM flight attendants". Quick frankly who gives a stuff about the availability of work for MAM flight attendants when we are being told about the redundancy program.

lowerlobe

1st May 2007, 03:14

That is exactly the problem as they should now be called the mam union.

gigs

1st May 2007, 03:49

seems a few pennys are droping

casualvermin

1st May 2007, 11:10

G/h the 'work' for casuals is fixing the breach in our eba, 9 months later. I see your point, but really something is clearly wrong with them representing both perm & casuals, is there not?

Why aren't the permanents lobbying harder to stop the casuals coming on line? FAAA probably won't.

Why did MAM pay the casuals $500 000 to get EBA through?

500 casuals in 2006 - $1000 each for the 'yes' vote.:confused:

Why was it worth half a mil?

lexus1

1st May 2007, 12:03

in lieu of backpay, i suspect

gigs

1st May 2007, 22:32

not only are more pennys droping, i think the big picture of the proximate post which started this thread is slowly being unfolded. and for everyones info yes i give a "stuff" if people cant work or loose their jobs, farout how would you feal if i said i dont give a stuff if long haul go on forced leave were is my high hours? cheers gigs

call button

2nd May 2007, 06:10

I am sick and tired of working with people who can barely speak English and its even more frustrating trying to read some of the posts on here!!!

gigs

2nd May 2007, 06:34

simple mate dont even try to read it!

casualvermin

2nd May 2007, 07:04

Sorry you feel that way Blue Spot, if you have a problem with understanding people at work you should report it or contact CASA. Perhaps you are choosing not to understand the points made, like; MAM & FAAA screwing both permaments and casuals; VR being offered whilst contract C's are still being hired; casual recruitment drive starting in July; casuals being made fulltime:rolleyes: in next two weeks; MAM & FAAA paying for casuals to vote yes on EBA.

Now who voted for FWA and casuals?

Who is lobbying to stop more casuals coming out online?

gigs

2nd May 2007, 07:57

you have put it all in one perspective cv i would be interested in what all think unless they are unable or unwilling to understand the post you have written! me thinks blue light person only half reads all posts and assumes that they know it all because of another talent which could be? (not flying if thats what yah think!) cheers and thanks for posting gigs

casualvermin

2nd May 2007, 08:16

FYI

Casuals career progression has commenced... if you believe what is in your pigeon hole, lets wait and see hey...

Wifey got dinner on the table gotta go[like my engrish]

gigs

2nd May 2007, 08:26

blue light boy if you work with folk who have a severe problem with english should you not be responsible and complete a care report to casa? if indeed you fly........... if you do not fly pls stop trying to understand what you can not darls! cheers gigs

Mr Seatback 2

2nd May 2007, 11:09

casualvermin,

By career progression, I assume you mean conversion to full time?

Is this occurring now, or is just being talked about?

stubby jumbo

2nd May 2007, 12:21

.....any truth to the rumour that a SYD S/H -CSM has been punted after being caught by Security with "more than a few"... bottles of Chardy tucked away in his incabin bag??

Talk about greedy.

Is he running a bottle shop on his days off?

L1A

2nd May 2007, 12:35

When will the FAAA come clean a give a response to the SMH article? :D :D
When will MAM just come clean? :confused: :confused: :confused:
I’m still waiting for an honest response from our FAAA S/H union. :{
L1A

gigs

2nd May 2007, 15:13

must admitt nothing has been said?

lowerlobe

2nd May 2007, 20:47

gigs...

I'm surprised you thought they would have anything to say about the SMH article.

cokecropduster

2nd May 2007, 23:14

What's in the pigeon holes?

ditzyboy

2nd May 2007, 23:40

I am sick and tired of working with people who can barely speak English

What a gem of a post.

How incredibly racist we are becoming. I love that nowadays we have such a diverse workforce at SH. And finally having language speakers means we offer a half decent service to a large proportion of our customers that do not speak English. Perhaps I am one of a dying breed that is remotely concerned with our customer's interests and not just their own.

The attitude developing at SH is disgusting. Lazy racists who are all of 20 telling everyone what to do and not interested in providing even a bare minimum service. It makes me sick.

These people are the ones that tell everyone they deserve permenant employment whist not lifting a finger until told to do so. Which they then do with attitude and treat customers with contempt for making additional requests. They do not consider the next crew and leave galleys and bars in a mess. It's all about drinking in the slip port and duty free... They have a disregard for SOP and the reason behind any rules and do as they please, leaving others to pick up the pieces.

I have found language speakers to be eager to work hard and make customers happy. They certainly cop an absolute flogging on language routes whilst these other people have the hide to make such racist remarks. The treatment I have witnessed from younger crew toward language speakers (some in the late 30s and 40s) is appalling. Please show some respect and maturity.

Some people need to take a look at themselves and assess the true value of their contribution to the team.

speedbirdhouse

3rd May 2007, 00:14

Mmmmmm......

dickson's chickens are coming home to roost.

Can't wait for the AKL fiasco to begin. :ok:

ditzyboy

3rd May 2007, 00:55

Whats going on in AKL? Do tell...

gigs

3rd May 2007, 01:47

i guess the day club sounds like perth ditzy boy but could also be sydney......i would like to say a big thanks for that post my thoughts exactly...i agree 100% cheers gigs

casualvermin

3rd May 2007, 01:49

Could it be the olive branch of career progression is just buying time?
We've been in promiseland before and seen nothing.....how about something more concrete?

gigs

3rd May 2007, 06:44

i would have thought an employment application form and a note saying casuals shall be notified in about 1 week about transfers for home base means more one would think...........maybe its a long process...........at least some staff would go up in bidding. cheers gigs

ditzyboy

3rd May 2007, 07:18

Casuals are given the opportunity to be made permanent - this is NOT Career Progression.

cokecropduster

3rd May 2007, 07:39

Are all casuals going to be made permanent?

QF skywalker

3rd May 2007, 07:45

Qantas to Open New Base in Cairns Latest News
Sydney, 03 May 2007
Qantas today announced that it would establish a new base in Cairns from September, following a decision to close its Australian Airlines operation.
The Executive General Manager of Qantas, Mr John Borghetti, said the Qantas Group - which currently employed around 950 people in Cairns - would remain a major employer in Cairns, continuing to directly employ more than 900 people.
"We expect the majority of Australian Airlines cabin crew to take up new positions in Cairns," he said.
"The new base will employ approximately 220 cabin crew, all recruited from the Australian Airlines Cairns base.
"Cabin crew positions are also available with Jetstar, which is currently recruiting for its new international base in Cairns."
Mr Borghetti said that in addition to the cabin crew positions in Cairns:
* all Australian Airlines pilots would return to Qantas operations, with an opportunity for half (around 40) to remain in Cairns to crew, subject to union agreement, those B767 operations that continue to use Cairns airport and the remainder relocating to Sydney;
* positions would be available for all administrative staff in Brisbane or Sydney; and
* additional cabin crew positions would be available in London, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
He said the Qantas base would operate B767, B737 and A330 aircraft between Cairns and a range of destinations on the Qantas domestic network, as well as Qantas' Cairns-Narita flights.
"Our meetings last month with political and tourism representatives in Cairns, including Mayor Kevin Byrne, provided an opportunity for the Qantas Group to assess all the options available for future operations in the region," he said.
"Our overriding objective was to ensure that the Qantas Group could continue to grow services and support tourism in the region.
"Qantas, Jetstar and QantasLink will continue to operate almost 400 flights each week - more than 71,000 seats - in and out of Cairns.
"This is an important development for the Qantas Group, enabling us to strengthen our presence in Cairns and ensure that we continue to grow tourism in the region."
Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (Q3752)
Email: [email protected]

speedbirdhouse

3rd May 2007, 08:02

Ditzyboy,

QF management [cough] are creating a stand alone CC base in AKL along the lines of the LHR one.

We currently have to fly with QF's "new breed" and the thought of them running P/C and J/C cabins fills me with dread.

I will be doing ALL in my power to avoid flying with them and I won't be alone. For months supervisors have been doing all they can to dump AKL-LA trips.
Now it'll be the CSM's turn to deal with the grief.

We all know what is happening with the regional flying now that it is almost exclusively being done by the domestics as we hear the horror stories.

The AKL base is just going to be more of the same. Except with more demanding, bigger spending and higher yield passengers.

The type who CHOOSE to award QF with their million dollar travel contracts.........

galleyslag

3rd May 2007, 13:29

Will AO -> S/H CNS get bands?

ditzyboy

3rd May 2007, 23:47

The EBA states anyone who joins SH post a certain date (2003 some time?) get DHP as opposed to bands. DHP is around 2/3 of the bands amount for the same Band.

This includes LH transfers, Career Progression, new hires, MAM to permanent - everyone. Even people coming back to SH after a stint at LH.

galleyslag

4th May 2007, 01:49

So lower conditions than those who are taking VR?
Will they keep seniority? Will the CSM's remain as CSM's?
Technically I guess that AO had no progression in any EBA which makes them 'alley cats', which means regional progression has been triggered?
How many f/a need to leave the base? It is just going to be 220, right?
How many regional/JQ can come across?
:confused::confused::confused:
Not enough information for my liking.....

regionalguy

4th May 2007, 06:58

This just in from the FAAA SH

Attention all Qantas Group Flight Attendants

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES – CNS BASE

Late yesterday, Qantas announced that the subsidiary Australian Airlines is to cease operations and that a Short Haul base is to be established in Cairns.

Qantas management contacted the Association yesterday advising of the announcement and offering discussions. As you will understand, until these discussions have taken place, we are not in a position to report on any specific arrangements for the start up for the new base.

While there are obvious questions that all members have, depending upon their airline, it is important to remember that the new base is not scheduled to commence until September 2007. Members can be assured all issues relating to the creation of a new base will be raised through the negotiations with Qantas. By way of example, the announcement included capacity for Australian Airlines crew to express an interest in other Short Haul bases. This will not impact on our existing base transfer arrangements that are already the subject of separate discussions. Once details have been discussed and agreed, members will be advised accordingly.

The decision to offer employment to Australian Airlines crew is welcomed and is consistent with Southern Airlines closure where all displaced flight attendants were offered options of employment.

In the meantime, all members should be pleased for Australian Airlines crew (also members of the FAAA and part of the Qantas subsidiary group) that there is now an opportunity for ongoing employment and they are not faced with compulsory redundancy.

Members will be kept informed as the matter progresses.

This newsletter was written and authorised by Jo Ann Davidson, Divisional Secretary and John Playford Manager Industrial Relations

galleyslag

5th May 2007, 01:01

Well the newspaper already told us that. Haven't the FAAA got an idea of some kind direction in which the want to blend AO to S/H? What would they like to see?
And now we have VR as there is a surplus of s/h crew, yet they are still recruiting casual and now AO on lower conditions than those who will be redundant. FAAA where are your scruples?

lowerlobe

5th May 2007, 01:35

Very interesting move by the company when you think about it.

Currently the AO crew are members of the L/H FAAA.Now If they take up the offer and become S/H in the Cairns base they will I suspect become members of the S/H FAAA.

So in one stroke they are reducing the members and therefore the revenue base of the L/H division and giving it to the S/H FAAA.....Very Cosy

L1A

5th May 2007, 05:38

Sydney-Mumbai-London ….on it’s way.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Why do you think us casuals are doing the Bombay / Mumbai shuttle?
Qantas & the Australian government are in CONSTANT meetings with the Indian government for all allowing Mumbai – London three weekly services, then daily services. Hello to more offshore Flight Attendants at a 90% discount.
The schedule service will be around November, December 2008.
Oh! Yes this will happen.....
L1A:ok:

cartexchange

5th May 2007, 06:41

great..... let the casuals and any others have Bombay, the place is a faarken dump and no one ever wants to go there.
Most people you speak to in LH are dreading the thought of BOM coming back.
the Domestics can have it for as long as they like.

roamingwolf

5th May 2007, 06:41

"L1A" crew member 6,876,846 who know's someone and had been given the inside gos on what the company are going to do in 18 months time.

mate not that i am cynical or anything but they can't even get to a 7pm deadline after nearly 4 to 6 months of planning so what makes you think they know what they are going to be doing in 18 months let alone you?

If you like being a casual then good for you but i'm glad i have seen the good times and feel sorry for those who think the job is good now...mate if you think flying to mumbai is good then i wont mention tahiti let alone all the other ex ports we used to sit at by the pool.

by the way if they do have more os cheap crew they are going to be paid less than you and you know what that means.GD will want you to take a pay cut because you are to expensive

mate i forgot to tell you,we were doing bombay londons when you were in kindy!!!

so the rights are probably still there plus the indians would never give the chance to get hard currency a miss

casualvermin

5th May 2007, 07:09

I think L1A, might have been a wee :rolleyes: Casuals don't like going there, it is just those old band moles don't - they dump the trip and casuals end up with runny dumps - just like my pie at the footy, all gravey no meat.
Any fulltimers out there who can confrim that their weekend work is drying up??????
Back on the O/S cap, will the remainder of AO have to go over to LHR or is sending Aussie crew over there finished?

casualvermin

5th May 2007, 07:15

Excuse me miss, are you one of those oldies that have a taxi sent to your home when you are on SBY? Do you let the cab driver do a couple of jobs before you are ready to go?
Now I bet they were the good old days...........

Mr Seatback 2

5th May 2007, 08:19

Wouldn't a BOM-LHR sector go to the LHR base? Aren't they cheaper than the casuals?

Or perhaps...even...a new BOM overseas base?? :hmm:

roamingwolf

5th May 2007, 09:37

casualvermin

mate you said "Excuse me miss, are you one of those oldies that have a taxi sent to your home when you are on SBY?"

a coupla points pal ,if you think others are girls it usualy means you are.also if you are on standby's and your entitled to a cab then you'd be a goose if you said no.we might be called out to LA or wherever not Dubbo.

I don't know about you but it doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to get ready but then i suppose you kids have to do your hair and make up so the cab could do some local work in the mean time.

twiggs

5th May 2007, 09:48

a coupla points pal ,if you think others are girls it usualy means you are.

So that confirms that you are a girl roamingwolf, because you constantly refer to me as one.

Excuse me miss, are you one of those oldies that have a taxi sent to your home when you are on SBY?

Ms wolf, I think you will find that casualvermin was referring to those amongst us who refuse to give ops a contact number for standby and therefore the company is forced to send a taxi to their residence to advise them they have been called out.

casualvermin

5th May 2007, 10:06

Yes Twiggs I was refering to the ones who have no telephone. God, I ain't a bone head, a free ride is a free ride.
I do apologise Mr Wolf, when I hear kindy I just think MISS MISS. I don't mind if we save the lack of male primary school teachers for another day.

What I still don't get is why you assume it was a jab? I understand that you think casuals a scabs, but one day you and other longhaulers might come to the conculsion that casuals and mainstream S/H are not out to do you out of a job. In fact years back in double talk it was the team managers who were singing about regional flying, along with FAAA.

Now can a s/h person tell me, are you getting weekend work? How come contract C roster comes out before yours?

roamingwolf

5th May 2007, 10:53

casualvermin
sorry mate i thought you were having a shot at me and i apologise for having a shot at you.

I don't reckon casuals are scabs but crew who voted in s/h and their union are taking our flying but it's not the mam's fault.they are just applying for a job but people like twiggs think that they and the conditions are good and acceptable.thats what we cannot understand but then again not everyone here is really crew
Twiggs..glad to see you here, are you back from a staff meeting?

galleyslag

5th May 2007, 12:22

Something is going on with rosters, thats a fact. I have heard they are trying to eliminate seniority with demand days. COuldn't comment on Casual rosters, I do know that some have high hours, like 145-170 in 28 days, but again they are allowed to work 25 days.

wa.man

5th May 2007, 13:04

I am so tired of reading negative comments about casuals... We are just a group of people who want to be flight attendants and work on a Qantas Jet. Sadly we have no other choice as its pretty much the only option we have
[ other than spending years with Link or JQ].
Give us a break, god knows we would all like to work under the same conditions as permanent staff.. Something Im sure very few will ever have the opportunity to do!!!

roamingwolf

5th May 2007, 21:39

wa.man
mate if you read my post it is not the casuals we are upset with.It is the USE of casuals by the company and the relationship between certain groups that we find a bit dodgey.

In fact i said it was not the mam casuals fault as they are just applying for a job.

Our jobs (which we already have) are being reduced all the time by the use of casuals.it is not YOU it is the company and others that we have a problem with such as some here that support the use of casuals.i still can't get over the news that c mams only get 3 days off a month,mate thats wrong.

wa.man

6th May 2007, 01:06

Roamingwolf..
Thanks for your reply...Certainly wasnt directed at you or anyone esle. Was just general statements about what I read on this forum....Think I am going to have to give up pprune, Im finding it all a bit depressing.
On the 3 day off issue for C contracts... We get approx 10 days off per month..We get to request a group of 3 days per month [not gaurenteed] although I must admitt I have always been given my request.
Think myself and most other casuals look at this as just a short term employment prospect. Very sad really..

speedbirdhouse

6th May 2007, 01:10

Quote- "Think myself and most other casuals look at this as just a short term employment prospect"

-----------

Look on the bright side. At least Qantas gets what it wants. Courtesy of that "cosy" little relationship.........

lowerlobe

6th May 2007, 02:36

Twiggsy.....

Sorry I missed you back on line.

I also missed your post to my question as to how you knew all the details about the MEL/NRT flight.

Very interesting........

LL

flitegirl

6th May 2007, 03:25

Hi Casualvermin
Yes the AO crew have been told they can apply for QCCUK but will be placed in a Short Haul base first.
I attended the AO seminar the other day and a few brief points were as follows:-
-Most crew will remain in Cairns. (220 positions)
-Current AO CMs will need to apply for CSM positions (only available in Cairns)
-10 FA positions in SYD
-20 FA positions in MEL
-50 FA positions in PER
-expressions of interest for voluntary transfer will be awarded according to start-date at AO
-once employment commences at short haul, crew will be able to transfer in accordance with the short haul EBA
-start dates/seniority will be re-set.
-The new cairns base will initially only be open to current AO crew.
-Qantas does not intend to employ casual crew in Cairns (...my thoughts.... watch this space!)
-Crew will have their 737, A330, and 767RR conversions during July, August and September.

roamingwolf

6th May 2007, 04:08

If it was me i'd be asking for anything important in writing.

casualvermin

6th May 2007, 08:53

While resting in the 'bottomless pitt' I had a dream. But I need some help in answering the questions it posed........
QF are very lucky, some might say the management team are the smartest men in the room. How clever they are. Whilst ripping away employee conditions and taking away 'frontline staff' from its customers, they've had a plan all along.
They have successfully set up a divided workforce amoungest cabin crew:
1. longhual
2. shorthaul[the weakest link]
- permanent[fulltime, reduced hours, part time]
- MAM
* contract A
* contract B
* contract C
3. AO
4. Jetstar
5. Jetstar intl
6. eastern/sunstate
7. njs
8. alliance
With AO merging with short haul, will set the precident for the rest of crew around the trap. It is imperative that FAAA INTL[FI] negotiate for AO crew, along side with FAAA Dom/Reg[fd].
Now should the 2 union merge?
If so, under what conditions?
How will we trust them?
Who should leave?
How will we elect officials?
Or should it remain as is and casuals get a new union?
Can the union stop falling into the 'jobs for the boys' trap?