View Full Version : QF Longhaul CC......" The chocolategate Affair"

25th Jul 2007, 23:40
The word on the street is that P W-B has been fully re-instated with back pay after being sacked by CC management [cough] for being found with a number of chocolates in his possession [off the aircraft].

Some background.............


25th Jul 2007, 23:48
I agree with QF enforcing not stealing wines etc, but this was absolutely outrageous. This was purely QF boosting engagement levels. (Personally think some of QF management have taken management lessons from Hitlers little black book)

Good on the guy for winning and sticking it up QF. I hope he gets a payout and doesnt have to work for QF again.

25th Jul 2007, 23:54
Wow,some here like twiggs who posted this little gem..

"Lowerlobe you had better admit that the chocky bandit has not yet won or lost his case, as I am sure you are misleading many people by this claim"

....will not be pleased by this especially as she played judge,jury and executioner by referring to him as the "chocky bandit".

26th Jul 2007, 00:27
Lowerlobe, you are again posting misinformation.
That article is from March.
If you have a link to the AIRC decision giving his job back, then post it.
Otherwise, stop pre-empting the decision.
It serves the guy no justice.

26th Jul 2007, 00:30
He has his job back with back pay. Walk around the corner and ask ST.

She will know:E:ok:

26th Jul 2007, 00:31
If they were serious about pilfering at Qantas they would inspect the boots of all management cars leaving the base on Friday afternoon.
Particularly the Friday before a long weekend.
The wine beer and spirits(Company Stores)departing the base causes a few executive Beemers to be markedly lower over the rear axles.
Bar B at KBs?...do not BYOG
Qantas...the Animal Farm at Mascot

26th Jul 2007, 01:21
As I said a decision against the company and who turns up..Twiggs...

twiggs say's.. "It serves the guy no justice"..

and yet it is YOU who call him the "chocky bandit".

26th Jul 2007, 04:38
Nothing to do with the company, just defending when you distort my comments and try to post rumour and innuendo as fact.

26th Jul 2007, 04:48
The FACT is that he got his job back WITH back pay.

Isn't it twiggs?

Rumour has it that, so damning was the Commissioner of QF management's [cough] treatment of Mr Phillip Woodwood Brown that QF tried [unsuccessfully] to have the transcripts of the proceedings made confidential.

I won't be the only one waiting with baited breath to read of the "heroic deeds" of fat boy slim, the boyscout, lurch, the dj hostie and the kiwi sociopath fighting the good fight against, THE CHOCOLATE BANDIT.

26th Jul 2007, 05:00
I have no idea if he has his job back, but if the decision has not even been publicised by the union, then I highly doubt that it has occurred.
Interesting that his name wasn't in the CIS system when I checked 5 minutes ago.

26th Jul 2007, 05:44

You are so determined that he is found guilty and I wanted to post this before you left work to go home.


Here is the web page for the decision handed down by the airc in this matter.

If this link does not work then go to the airc web site and look for decisions and there it is Twiggsy .....

It makes very interesting reading especially if you know the characters....

Quote from twiggsy "if the decision has not even been publicised by the union, then I highly doubt that it has occurred"

twiggsy your WRONG AGAIN.....but at least like the company you are consistent

26th Jul 2007, 07:26
Well what a good result for him, well done to his defence team.
And for Lowerlobe, finally you provide the evidence that changes your statements from gossip to fact.

I was not wrong, as you so joyfully proclaim.
I never claimed he had lost the case, only that he had removed company stores from the aircraft in breach of company policy, something which was never disputed.
I only disputed your claims of victory due to lack of evidence to the contrary.
Now that you have provided that, we can congratulate the bloke.

26th Jul 2007, 07:41
Ohhh that must have hurt....:ouch:

26th Jul 2007, 07:46
I can see the splinters under the fingernails from that!

Dun worry Lowerlobe, we had faith in ya.

stubby jumbo
26th Jul 2007, 11:20
After just trawling thru the decision by Drake at the AIRC..........I feel sick:yuk: that all parties have invested so much time, energy, effort and $$$$$$ ............for what------some chocolates and biscuits.!!!

why why why why WHY WHY...????????????

This is yet another appalling example of management( burp) Qantas style.
It is another disgraceful example of the way this company treats its front line staff.

I am not condoning the stealing of Company stores, but to handle a case like this in such a public manner -defies belief.

Surely, it could of been handled internally.

"No, lets show all the world what a bunch of low life thieving turds we have as Qantas Cabin Crew!!!!!" -ST,AW, AB, FBS,et al.


26th Jul 2007, 11:37
............for what------some chocolates and biscuits.!!
I am not condoning the stealing of Company stores, but to handle a case like this in such a public manner -defies belief.

:D :D Yes that's right Stubby and so much wasted time and effort over such a trivial matter. :* Made fools of themselves yet again. := I would like to suggest guys n gals that we have a whip around and purchase a box of Patons chocolate macadamias for our esteemed "management" team as a gesture of goodwill and to let bygones be bygones. I'm currently on LSL however if someone could arrange to buy some from the on board duty free stock I'd be more than happy to contribute..........and please don't forget to obtain the crew discount. :E

And thanks lowerlobe for posting the airc link. Twiggs that must have really hurt. :ouch: :eek: ;)

26th Jul 2007, 11:48
Twiggs,YOU now have as much "INTEGRITY" as a "RUGBY LEAGUE SCRUM" on these pages.

Going Boeing
26th Jul 2007, 12:13
Integrity is like Virginity - once it is lost, it is lost forever.

26th Jul 2007, 14:35

For the record, I usually agree with your posts, but here I have to say 'read the decision' - closely.

But to sum up for you:

There was no theft. As a result, there is no line to be drawn.

Qantas was found to have had a reasonable case to discipline the F/A only with respect to his lax attitude to certain policies.

But if you do want to go on a line-drawing exercise, the decision states that, with respect to discplining him for his attitude to certain policies, the Company does indeed have discretion in the measure of discipline it hands out - it does not have to dismiss. "Will' and "may" are used in the same clause of the policy so there is clear, deliberate allowance for discretion.

Managers Perspective
26th Jul 2007, 16:26
Regardless of the individual merits of this particular case, do we all agree that theft is theft and it should be treated the same no matter who it is, their stature in the company, or how much the value is?

Theft pisses me off big time.


26th Jul 2007, 16:32
Managers Perspective give it a rest. You're guilty of theft yourself.

Yes that's right, you're an oxygen thief :}

26th Jul 2007, 20:58
Managers Perspective and Pass a frozo so what about the same people who told the court that the person in this case committed an act of theft then make personal calls from a company phone?

As you said theft is theft no matter how small.

MP and PAF have you ever made a personal phone call using a company phone?

I expect you will hand yourselves in to your security department first thing this morning and tender your resignation before handing yourself over to the police.

26th Jul 2007, 22:46
who is a csm has in "his tool kit " always a few pens, panamax and a couple of pieces of stationary in his pocket. he calls it tools of his job and saves him considerable wasted times otherwise. experts would call it ready to deliver service of a premium airline. of course he forgets sometimes to empty his pockets at the end of a sector, so he uses it on the next sector. qf managers would call it theft. a funny way of doing business:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

26th Jul 2007, 23:59
As always, the arguments are not that simple. Theft is theft, but only if you have stolen!

The QF rules on related matters are so poorly worded that many of us break them inadvertently every day. Having a shampoo bottle in your carry-on baggage is illegal for Qantas crew, for example. As is carrying ANY resealable container designed for liquids.

Saving the company money and waste is illegal too. You cannot legally take your 1/4 consumed bottle of water from one aeroplane to another to avoid making them provide you with a new unopened one. Though I have done so and have no moral or ethical qualms about it at all. It would be a publicity nightmare if they were to sack me for it. "Qantas spends million dollars employing pilot. Sacks him for reducing costs and waste."

RedTbar also makes a good point. Whether it be a pen, or making a private phone call from company offices, many of those expressing relative outrage at the immorality of such "stealing" don't have completely clean backyards, I suspect! Not that being hypocritical is breaking the law.

27th Jul 2007, 00:20
Ms Drake said that although Mr Woodward-Brown had breached Qantas policy by his actions, she found the sacking was "disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct".

The termination was ruled harsh, unjust or unreasonable under the Workplace Relations Act.

Qantas has declined to comment.

Say's it all really :rolleyes:

kiwi chick
27th Jul 2007, 00:29
Oh my god. I thought that surely this was a piss-take to start with, but


RedTbar also makes a good point. Whether it be a pen, or making a private phone call from company offices, many of those expressing relative outrage at the immorality of such "stealing" don't have completely clean backyards, I suspect! Not that being hypocritical is breaking the law.

Couldn't agree more - I considered myself up to now a very honest person, but I to have made a personal phone call from my place of work... and taken the odd pen.

I think the lesson learnt is this: If you work for qantus, check your pockets on the bridge, and if there's anything in there, EAT IT! (or drop it ;) )

27th Jul 2007, 02:34
Mental Note - empty large supply of company supplied pens, fluro pink and yellow ear thingamiebobs, sterile wipes, and crew tags from bag.

27th Jul 2007, 02:46
Not only that but it appears as though if you take any crew pics on board or anywhere that has any QF property in the frame you will have to apply to your manager first.

If you are found to have any pics without the appropriate paper work filled out and authorized you will face severe penalties.

If you are operating crew and intend to eat any left over food or stores such as macadamia nuts you will have to seek approval from either the CSM or the CSS.

If neither of these crew are available you must call the flight deck and receive approval from the PIC.

This approval must also be documented in triplicate on company form UPYOURS.101 and be witnessed by a current board member, a J.P or a marriage celebrant unless you are flying over Nevada in which case anyone over the age of 21 will suffice.

The empty food wrapper must be stapled to the form and placed in the appropriate orifice...sorry office upon return to your base.

27th Jul 2007, 03:06
U Beauty lowerlobe!! :ok: :D :D :D Have'nt laughed so much for ages. Made my day thanks mate..........unless of course that it's true??!! :E

27th Jul 2007, 03:10
Actually Lowerlobe - if all cabin crew ICAN (or whatever the acronym is /UPYOURSIT !) the meals they eat, including the extras, plus do exactly as you said - staple emtpy wrappers and send them in, you may get a fast resolution to this stupidity. They need to be inundated with thousands of them.

When they introduced to tech crew the no resealable containers thingy, the duty captains and respective fleet managers were called or faxed at all hours of the day requesting approval to carry toothpaste, shampoo, powerade etc. Needless to say they got sick of being woken at 2 in the morning asking if XX could carry his toothpaste - so they changed the policy quite quickly.

27th Jul 2007, 06:13
nice one lobey :E

i'm away for a day and come back for a stickey beak and the wheels have fallen off in the mushroom factory.a good result but not for fat boy slim.how many games is that he's lost for team evil now?

mate i reckon the bit about the scrum is a beauty capt cynical and going boeing.i keep on thinking about a virgin with integrity in a scrum and losing it somewhere.

as a few others have said "that must have hurt"

27th Jul 2007, 08:27
Managers Perspective,

Ah - no. Read the AIRC decision. It points out that the policy itself contains discretion - the words 'will' and 'may' are used in the same clauses so the difference is deliberate. And this is separate to the finding that there was no theft in this case.

What you are suggesting is that some 10 year old kid who knicks a loaf of bread should go down with the hardened burglars. Eye for eye, etc. so the world becomes blind and toothless. 'Scales of justice', mate and let the punishment fit the crime. To say that any theft, regardless of value, is as serious as any other is indeed what built Australia (they called it 'transportation' back in 1788) but we've moved on since then. You're welcome to come with us.

And anyone who might like to continue carping that there was theft in this instance might like to consider that the AIRC has analysed the situation, determined that there was no theft in this case so any aspersion cast on any individual involved can be treated in the same way as one cast on any non-involved individual - that is, defamation.

27th Jul 2007, 09:15
This is an interesting article......

FORT WORTH (AP) — An American Airlines pilot has been docked a month of pay for pasting a small sticker that was critical of executive bonuses on his plane's exterior.

The pilot based at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport was frustrated by comments made by Jeff Brundage, the company's vice president of human resources, according to officials with its pilots' union.

After an investigation into the May incident, the Fort Worth-based airline recently decided to suspend the pilot without pay for 30 days, a penalty worth about $12,000. The pilot's name was not released.

Michael Leone, an American pilot who is vice chairman of the DFW chapter of the Allied Pilots Association, said the punishment is extreme, especially since the pilot apologized and said it would not happen again.

"No reasonable person would even consider placing such a financial hardship on one of our pilots and their families" for a minor infraction of company policy, Leone told union members in a memo. "The punishment clearly does not fit the crime."

Sue Gordon, an American spokeswoman, said the carrier typically does not comment on individual employee matters but said it followed normal procedures. The sticker was a violation of Federal Aviation Administration rules, according to the airline. The sticker's message was not known.

Interesting comparison.....

27th Jul 2007, 09:28
Ah....................there is one flaw in the system with the UPYOURSpaperwork, how will anyone find a stapler when they have alll been sent to the aircraft maintanace department.

Howard Hughes
27th Jul 2007, 09:36
You guys crack me up sometimes, it must be a ball having you all on a 16 hour flight together...:rolleyes:

27th Jul 2007, 10:28
With this company you need a sense of humor.....

27th Jul 2007, 11:43
“But what has it got in its pocketses eh?”

A very apt quote for a Lord of the Ring?

He stole chockies. It's as simple as that. Everyone's done it but he got caught.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Anything else is legal bullsh!t and everyone knows it. The chockies didn't just jump into his pocket along with the coffee things and pens or whatever else.

I didn't know they were there..... god give me STRENGTH!!!!!

27th Jul 2007, 12:08
OK, I'll put the "legal bullsh!t" aside for one moment and go along with the idea that

He stole chockies

Let's repeat that:

He stole chockies

Let's get a grip on it.

Chockies. :ugh:

But looking at the "theft is theft" philosophy for a moment. This idea says that any 'crime' of a particular sort is as bad as any other of the same sort.

I agree with the Commissioner that there was no theft but going along with it for a moment:

Did he steal an aeroplane? No.

Did he steal a car? No.

Did he steal something of high value or related to operational safety? No.

Can any PPRuNer honestly say that they have never told a 'little white lie'? Done 70 in a 60 zone? Maybe rounded-up a log-book hour here & there? Or maybe a duty hour & collected a bob or two extra allowance? Gone 'sick' because of a kid's birthday? Didn't think so.

So before we all starting taking the moral high ground and ranting on that 'theft is theft', let's take a moment in the mirror room and recall that there are lots of laws on the books which say something along the lines of "It will be an offence to do xyz". No ifs or buts - the law says it's an offence. But the law (and common sense) allow a bit of discretion in sanction - eg. "a fine up to... ". So someone who gives someone a smack in a bar is likely to receive a lesser sanction than someone who hits someone with a 4x2. Both assaults, but one clearly more serious than the other.

Another example is how we might feel after hearing about a couple of murders. One might feel that the bludgeoning murder of a pretty young mum, with her child in tow, whilst walking the family dog is pretty horrible. But it's murder. So is that any worse a murder than, say, the knocking-off of a drug dealing pimp with a list of previous form as long as your arm? It's still a murder. But I'll bet there'd be crowds outside the court, baying for blood, when the van brings the mum-killer in for committal. Meanwhile the reaction for the killer of the dealer would be 'good, one less drug-dealer on the streets'.

No, situations are not always black and white, we all try to use the law to our advantage at different times (divorces, disputes with the neighbour, was I speeding 14 or 16 kmh over the limit, etc). Whether it's bullsh!t or not, our law has developed over centuries to recognise this reality.

Did the removal of chocolates from the acft affect service standards or safety? No. As the Commissioner pointed out, having such items in his pockets may have actually been able to enhance service standards.

The cost of this litigation is out of all proportion to the effect. Shareholders have a right to be p!ssed at this sort of waste of money.

27th Jul 2007, 12:17
Crikey lowerlobe don't tell me you're a septic!! Or were you just displaying your sense of humour?? :ok:

Scootydoo -- There's nothing like a sore loser. :{ There must have been much gnashing & gnarling of teeth in the office today, but that's what happens when rank amateurs get involved way way out of their depth. Those office dwellers have no idea what happens in the real world and certainly not onboard a commercial airliner. Grow up and get over it. I repeat my earlier quote for which even you should be able to understand.

Ms Drake said that although Mr Woodward-Brown had breached Qantas policy by his actions, she found the sacking was "disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct".

The termination was ruled harsh, unjust or unreasonable under the Workplace Relations Act.

Qantas has declined to comment.

Points decision to the CSS and another :ouch: for the amateurs masquerading as "management".

stubby jumbo
27th Jul 2007, 12:28
Totally agree Taildrager.

But the Clowns we have masquerading as Management would be thinking ...........this is some sort of VICTORY.

"We are tough, we are ruthless,...........screw engagement these Cabin Crew-types need to be taught a lesson. Whats a lazy $350K when we are set to make a record profit."

One of the Dopes had the gall to come into our briefing today to give us an update of the "John Borghetti -Strategy Day"

GET OUT & STAY OUT.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I thought the lowest level of DISENGAGEMENT had been reached.......I've now moved into the minus zone.:zzz:

27th Jul 2007, 12:30
Unfortunately most of Qantas management is filled with rank amateur empire building twits with no concept of reality. Most seem to have no practical experience of what happens online. Unfortunately the bloke at the top is responsible for what goes on down the management tree, and as he can hardly set an example no one else will follow.

They are all in it for short term gain. They all want their little bit of power, they want to feel important, and want to feel as though they can boss people around.

One day, I hope they will wake up to the fact that they are soley responsible for destroying the heart, sole and spirit of the airline. They have, nor ever will have anything to be proud about.

27th Jul 2007, 12:55

Just play their own game some time - like passing up the line any form of pulling rank, do-you-know-who-I-am, going over baggage allowance or taking amenity kits or using lounges whilst on duty travel, etc.

And none of them would ever chuck in an extra litre or two when filling the tank of the company Beemer... surely not. :eek:

27th Jul 2007, 12:56
Very primal... and very unintelligent.

28th Jul 2007, 00:33
I hope he puts in for the next vr and gets a big payout
qantas you can bend the rules but you can not escape the universal law of kama

28th Jul 2007, 00:36
Shlonghaul...sorry about the spelling,yep I think I've done one too many LA trips.But what a lot of fun Howard would be to fly with...:yuk:

Scottypoo,firstly if you are happy to tell everyone you are a thief then go right ahead.

Quote from Scottypoo "He stole chockies. It's as simple as that. Everyone's done it but he got caught.If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

I am not a thief and like most people have integrity but if scotty has admitted that he has committed acts of theft then as he suggested he should do time.Let us know when the court case is scottypoo and we can cheer as you are led away.

This shows how incapable scottypoo is of understanding the vagaries of life.It would appear that scotty is more suited to simple tasks in life and should leave anything more complicated than buying a loaf of bread to others.

The commissioner obviously does not agree with scottypoo and the company has dug itself a hole yet again and will have to pay to get out of it.

29th Jul 2007, 06:31
Theft pisses me off big time. M.P....

As has been asked before MP ,have you ever taken a pen home or made a personal phone call from the office ?

I am interested in what you have to say on this.

As I post this I see that you are online so tell us your thoughts.

Managers Perspective
29th Jul 2007, 15:23
I don't get supplied company pens; in fact I like to write with a good quality pen.

I don't use an office phone as such either; it is all on a mobile today. Yes it is company provided mobile and yes I make personal calls on it.

It is actually written into my contract that I can make a "reasonable" amount of personal calls, part of an agreement to carry the phone 24/7 and to take business related calls at all hours.

All fully recorded and electronically traceable.


PS:- NAS1801, behave....

29th Jul 2007, 21:03
So then when you say that theft pisses you off big time ....

You have never taken a writing pad from the office home or had something done that was intended for work not for private use?

Something that was of so little commercial value that it is of no significance or importance?

Of course not....

Do you believe in a proportional response or do you think that every crime should be dealt with by hanging?

29th Jul 2007, 22:38
but what this managers perspective is saying is that something was pinched and thats not true.

what made the company and its managers look dopey and thats not hard is that they say you can eat them on the kite but not in your room.

if the comissioner thought he'd broken the law he'd be in the slammer but he didnt so thats that.

i think i'm going to call fat boy slim the brekky cook because he always has egg on his face.

how much has this guy cost the company

29th Jul 2007, 22:46
of eggs by now:):}:yuk:

30th Jul 2007, 09:15
MP wrote:

It is actually written into my contract that I can make a "reasonable" amount of personal calls, part of an agreement to carry the phone 24/7 and to take business related calls at all hours.

(emphasis added)

Is "reasonable" defined in that contract?

Thought not.

Some judgment is called for.

The same sort of judgment which was foreseen by the drafters of the policy which included "will" and "may" in the same clause.

Hence even if someone did actually steal something of low value, there is scope for use of judgment in applying an appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Good to hear that MP can afford to buy him/herself a "good quality" pen. Is this person asking us to believe that, in their entire career, they have never taken anything of the premises of the organisation they were working for? They also explain that they currently have a company-issued mobile phone. Has that been the case from day one of their career?

I'm not having a personal go here, MP, but you'll understand that it's a bit of an ask to expect people to believe that you've led the life of a cloistered nun since you left school (irrespective of what your current contract allows).

30th Jul 2007, 10:15
hmmmm.... the trolls run this board. Bugger

30th Jul 2007, 11:44
Some breweries allow staff to take as much as they want, I believe even a local well known chocolate factory as well, because at the end of the day the litle bit of good will is a minor expense, and is accounted for. After a awhile the novelty wears off and guess what......no many freebies at all.

So in flight, in your room......they should get over it. The available supply controls the movement of stock, so what!

its only theft until the company change a mindset, and they need to change it in a few areas, not just this one.:=

A piece of paper off a pad.....Geez don't breath their compressed air in flight now will ya!:ugh::ugh:

Technically the airline is right......in the real world.....they need to get real. And I do not work there, and yes I am an employer.


No SAR No Details
30th Jul 2007, 12:06
Just out of curiosity MP, do you make those (reasonable) personal calls on the company supplied mobile during your work hours?
ie are you a time thief? Talking on the dog and bone when you should be working hard.

Managers Perspective
30th Jul 2007, 15:04
I don't have "work hours", I have a job to do and that gets done.

It gets done whether I work across weekends, days, nights, whatever it takes.

For that I am paid an annual salary.

I am also chained to a phone.

Can't be that hard to understand....


P.S. Before someone asks, yes I have sugar in my tea and yes the sugar is company supplied for that purpose. No I don't take the sugar home to consume later.

30th Jul 2007, 20:58
MP..You did not answer the questions...

You did not always have a contract and must have worked as a lowly employee unless you work in your Daddy's business..so tell us if you have ever done anything that could be constituted as theft?

Do you believe in a proportional response or does everything require hanging?

You have not responded to the comment that this is and was not about theft.This is about ambiguity by the company and it's policies.

It is OK to eat something on the aircaft but not to take it to your room.

In our job there is always the possibility of leaving something unintentionally in your pocket.This is simply because you could be giving out pens for arrival documents and the aircaft hits some turbulence.the seat belt sign comes on and the next thing you know you are landing.

You finish your job which is a 10 hour all night affair and you get onto the crew bus and the next thing you know is Darths gestapo agents are searching you.

Would you sack someone with an unblemished career over over 30 years because of something so trivial....

31st Jul 2007, 07:23
MP is squeaky clean.... the sun shines out........ (If you ask him, anyway)

Mr Seatback 2
31st Jul 2007, 08:10
The interesting thing about this case is that rather than going for a demotion - at worst - for the crime of taking choccies from the aircraft (which are also the same brand & type supplied to the crew on their crew meals), they went straight for a sacking! As an outsider looking in, even I would consider sacking someone with no prior transgressions in their 30 + years service harsh and unreasonable.

How QF could even consider this to not come back and bite them is beyond me. This is a classic case of the company wanting to make an example of someone - and backfiring badly!

Another interesting thing I would like to know...how much does the exercise cost in paxing investigators here, there and everywhere to conduct inspections of the crew (+ allowances + hotel costs + transportation)? I don't imagine they travel Y class when they travel (I of course stand to be corrected), and just what have the 'big hauls' in these security inspections yielded? What effect has it actually had on an ongoing basis, apart from the clear scare tactic it provides to the majority of crew who do the right thing?

I'm not saying these sort of inspections shouldn't occur, but the message by in large, as I see it, is that crew are conditioned not to take things from the aircraft that are clearly defined not to be taken from them (eg. spirits, etc). The question of what constitutes theft in this case is moot, as determined by the commissioner, who is infinitely more qualified than I to make a judgement that stands in any form.

I would love to know how much this little exercise from the QF lynch mob has cost them and shareholders. And this is just one case we're aware of.

Clearly for QF management, ignorance is bliss. It's also very costly!

31st Jul 2007, 08:23
All this nonsense is about sending a message.
So far its been an expensive message
The Company has not won one single clause eleven.
It is all about fear and intimidation
Cabin Crew management's favourite tools.
Eventually fear turns to indifference.
That is exactly what has happened with QF LH Cabin Crew.
No wonder Servcie Standards are plumetting

31st Jul 2007, 08:28
Qantas has slipped from 2nd to 5th in Skytrax Airline Survey for 2007 :eek:

When will these fascist f#@kwits learn that bullying, fear, threats and intimidation are not the kind of "tools" :rolleyes: that get the best from ones employees.

stubby jumbo
31st Jul 2007, 11:03
Spot on Speedbird.

But alas ...............they couldn't give a Rats Rissole about some tawdry Skytrax Survey (doh!).

"We don't care about what the customers think-our planes are full"

"We don't care what our staff think-no one leaves"

"We don't care, we don't care, we don't care"



31st Jul 2007, 23:11
last year "Il Duce" proudly poited out the skytrax survey to the media. lets see what he/they say in media once it makes the rounds.:rolleyes:

1st Aug 2007, 21:11
Back to the chocolategate affair.....Obviously Managers Perspective has not answered the questions just as the company could not provide a satisfactory response either.

Hence the result........

1st Aug 2007, 22:27
The Company has not won one single clause eleven.

I found a couple of Clause 11 cases on the AIRC website which Qantas one or successfully upheld. I found a few more which were overturned too. Great reading nonetheless.

The amount of money Qantas spends on making these examples is surely cost prohibitive?

1st Aug 2007, 22:45
The matters you refer to were not clause elevens but rather matters of malicious damage etc. and were dealt with under other provisions.

1st Aug 2007, 23:32
The two I was thinking of were theft of company stores and assault of a crew member. Do these dismissals as a result of investigations not come under Clause 11?

Theft of company stores. Qantas appealed the decision to reinstate some of the employees and lost. One of the employess that lost his job appealed to have his job reinstated and lost.


Assault of a crew member during slip time. The employee lost in this case, I believe.


2nd Aug 2007, 00:03
how much would the brekky cook cost team evil with this court case?

can someone with friends in the union tell us how much this joke was.with all the legal eagles on both sides of the fence team evil must have lost a packet.

2nd Aug 2007, 00:41
The Assault in Singapore and the LA Six were not dealt with under the provisions of the LH CC EBA provisions but under the company general designations regarding behaviour and theft.
If Il Duce steals something he is not disciplined under a clause 11.
The incident in NRT was not dealt under clause 11 because pilots have no such provision.

2nd Aug 2007, 01:01
So what is the distinction then? In the case of investigations involving cabin crew why would Clause 11 not apply? Confused. If it is carrying the thread too far off topic or it is difficult to explain you needn't bother. Just curious. Thanks.

2nd Aug 2007, 01:06
I don't see the relevance if it was clause 11 or not.
In each case someone was dismissed for alleged misconduct.
The fact that the person decided to challenge the decision at the AIRC is what started the additional legal costs.
It was only in the LAX 6 case that Qantas appealed when the AIRC reinstated 3 of the 6 and subsequently lost the appeal.

2nd Aug 2007, 01:09
I agree Twiggs.
Ditzyboy is nitpicking.
I do believe that in light of the failures of clause 11s in the commission CC management are taking a more conciliatory approach to disciplinary matters.
The failures can be largely attributed to management in either failing to follow their own protocols or not knowing what the protocols are.
It has been largely about sending a message....using a tank to crack a nut.
They fail to understand the difference between disciplining a 5 year old child and disciplining a 45 year old tertiary educated adult(an analogy to emphasize a point).
Theft amongst CC is either minimal or non existent.
The same cannot be said of middle and senior management.
Qantas is, after all, "Animal Farm"...

B A Lert
2nd Aug 2007, 01:56
Theft amongst CC is either minimal or non existent.
The same cannot be said of middle and senior management

Put up or shut up. Let's just say that 'middle and senior management' put in much longer hours and make much greater contributions to the Company's welfare than any bloody Flight Attendant, past, present or future. For every minute an FA works, he or she is paid. The same cannot be said for the group you quickly disparage and defame. As for honesty, the facts are there for all to see. :ugh::ugh::mad::mad:

2nd Aug 2007, 02:17
One thing that should be remembered is that there are plenty of dismissals that are never challenged.
It's only when someone challenges the dismissal that it ends up in the AIRC.
It would be interesting to know what is the actual percentage of people that have been reinstated compared to the total amount of dismissals.

Here is one dismissal involving alleged theft that that remained after being challenged twice (although it appears that the person did not have legal representation:

2nd Aug 2007, 02:18
Nitpicking? I thought you were saying there was a major difference and that I had made an error. I asked a question.

My point was that Qantas readily fought such cases in the AIRC at much cost, as pointed out by Twiggs.

It has been largely about sending a message....using a tank to crack a nut.

Exactly. Wanting to make a poster child of someone to serve as a warning to others.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
2nd Aug 2007, 02:19
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (Jesus H Christ 0029ad)

Great thread people, where's the bouncer? I agree with the earlier post that suggested this was not about winning the case but the threat of future cases. It's all about fear, keep them on edge and they're less likely to shout loudly....

As to middle and upper managers, I like the way they have theft written into their contracts. Very nice indeed, you get to avoid those troublesome issues.

Mr. Lert normally I appreciate your informative posts but I must point out that ALL people are important in any Airline. From the cleaner that impresses the customers with a sweet smelling aircraft to the CEO who ensures the monopoly stays. As to who works harder, how long is a piece of string?

B A Lert
2nd Aug 2007, 02:44
Whiskey O G - I agree that everyone makes a solid contribution to the success of Charlie Q but I am sick to me eyeballs of some crew (albeit probably a minority) constantly slagging the ability, integrity and honesty of anyone who doesn't conform to their narrow view of life. These people need to take time out to actually smell the coffee they spend so much time drinking :ok::ok:

2nd Aug 2007, 03:00
Is there a provision for the facsist brown shirts inhabiting qcc1 to appeal the Woodwood-Brown finding?

There is obviously nothing approaching ANY concept of accountability for anyone in cabin crew management [cough].

Surely the appeal process will be seen for what it is?

A priceless opportunity to further stain QF's reputation in the community, disengage a few more crew and waste a few more, tens of thousands of dollars. :ok:

2nd Aug 2007, 03:05
there is no reason why they cannot appeal, just as they did in the LAX 6 case.
Hopefully though, they would not forget what happened with that appeal when they are making such decisions.

2nd Aug 2007, 03:19
B A Lerty are you retired and have nothing better to do than make excitable assertions about just about everyone?
A narrow view life according to you doesnt allow for fairness,justice but does allow for slander and libel.
There is an odium attached to being accused of theft.It also besmirches ones good name and character .Something that you are entitled to by law.
The success of QF according to you and QF management is down to them alone.
Sars and 911 hit.... take a pay freeze they say.....and we do.
No thanks from these priques what so ever.
Work harder with less and get paid less.
No one in management has ever ever taken a pay cut.
There is not one human being ever born that is educated enough ,intelligent enough creative enough to be awarded the remuneration that these swine award themselves.
The ideas originate from staff,consultants and in many cases from other companies.
Most of what is being contemplated now has been pinched from the APA consortium.
Staff are continually lied to and treated with disdain and contempt.
This forum provides an opportunity to vent a little anger at being treated in such a manner.
PPrune is also like TV...if you dont like the content you can switch it off
If you read these threads objectively you will find that is not only CC who are critical...you will also find Engineers pilots and airport ground staff.
If you want to lambast anyone...lambast the entire 36000 staff at QF.
Oh I forgot...Dont have a go at your beloved management...they are outstanding,moral, just and inordinately creative...a bit like you arent they?
BA Lert you are nothing more than a self appointed keeper of the moral high ground.....what a screwed up place the world would be if we had to conform to your narrow self righteous view of it.
You are a uninformed misinformed outsider who doesnt have to deal with the top down contemptible attitude of these basturds.
Why do I stay?
Call me bloody minded but I want to outlast them and see them off the premises

2nd Aug 2007, 03:28
BA lert
A very sad post by you.
It greatly saddens me to think that you are one of the "support" people that we on occasion need to speak to on the ground.
Qantas can well do without you.
Having worked on the ground in QF on quite a few occasions and seeing what "most" of the ground staff do I can honestly say its far from contributing to the success of the airline.You however have not flown so you cannot make that statement, you have absolutely no idea what type of work we do!
Now get back to refilling your bottle of water and get on that phone and start your afternoon personal phone calls and don't start any further "work as you have a few hours before you go home, why don't you wonder down to the coffee shop or better still call a meeting and have a cake, my observations have shown that the people in QCC are very good at organizing "cake meetings"

B A Lert
2nd Aug 2007, 03:59
Seems that the nail's been hit right on the head. Some of you guys really need to take a long cold shower. While you're at it, also take a look in the mirror! :ok:

2nd Aug 2007, 04:48
BA..Are you having the day off or are you at work?

Because if you were at work and using company computers to access the internet for personal use you would be at risk of facing a disciplinary hearing.

2nd Aug 2007, 05:01
Pax are getting it in the neck and suffering a third rate product because of failing IFE,old aircraft and a woeful ontime departure record
Now if you were one of Dixons beloved shareholders and took the price that Dixon recommended to you...you have been well and truly rogered.
It appears that the future holds around $6.50 to $7.50 a share.
The Pax Get done over
The shareholders get done over
The staff get done over
Mr.Lert still thinks Dixon is wonderful.
Get a few chardies into some of middle management on duty travel and it becomes obvious he is loathed.
Every time I go to work I am threatened intimidated and harrassed by my manager.
Not because I dont do a great job...but because I am seen as expensive.
How can I be expensive ?...I dont receive incentive bonuses.I am paid a good wage to do a good job.
I dont need all the rubbish that comes my way from management.

B A Lert
2nd Aug 2007, 05:09
Are you having the day off or are you at work?

Yes, no or maybe? It's none of your fecking business.

Mr.Lert still thinks Dixon is wonderful.

Wrong. Do some research.

Get a few chardies into some of middle management on duty travel and it becomes obvious he is loathed.

How devious is that?

Every time I go to work I am threatened intimidated and harrassed by my manager.

Paranoid? If you don't like it, get another job if you can or take action against said manager. You do have remedies.

2nd Aug 2007, 05:29
Yes, no or maybe? It's none of your fecking business.

Well,BA as usual you feel it is your god given right to criticise others even though you have never done their job.

The company which feels it is ok to try and dismiss someone of more than 30 years standing over a trivial amount might not agree with your post.

Did you use a company computer during work time to access the internet for personal issues?

Thats right, a company piece of equipment and on work time when you are being paid to work for the company not to entertain yourself.

If you were at work when surfing the net I expect you to call security and stand down pending an enquiry and possible dismissal.

2nd Aug 2007, 05:34
I want to be given the resources to do my job well.
I do not want to be put in a position where I have to say to a customer sorry but we dont have any today.
I dont want to have to apologize for service failures that I have no control over.
I dont want to be worried about losing my job if I discover 2 Panamax in my jacket
I dont want to be given advice or criticism by some myopic moronic outsider called B A Lert.
Im not paranoid but my solicitor is

2nd Aug 2007, 08:42

I'm not making any comment pro or anti your views in this thread, except to just point out that, whilst it might appear 'devious' to squeeze some useful info (and honest impressions) out of someone by getting them loaded, it's a time-honoured practice. Business has been done that way for, oh, centuries. It's what keeps restaurants in any business district, in business.

Any competent manager who is worried about spilling a few beans when they get a couple under the belt should stick to water, a Blue or a shandy. Take a look next time you're in a bar at lunchtime or after school, with managers from any company and you'll see quite a bit of these being consumed - because a competent manager knows the ramifications of spilling such beans.

2nd Aug 2007, 09:27
Ego and Alcohol.
I'm Middle Management...Cant wait to tell you how important I am and what I know.
Who employs these people?

2nd Aug 2007, 09:32
it is ok to try and dismiss someone of more than 30 years standing over a trivial amount

It speaks volumes about the common-sense levels and intellect of some of the blue-collar rabble ranting and raving here that they can't see the irony in attacking Qantas for unlawfully dismissing an employee from the group they see as part of their problem while enthusiastically attempting to discriminate between someone who put in 30 years and "forgot" he had a pocket-full of chockies and someone who put in one, two or five years and "forgot" he had a pocket-full of chockies.

The militant boiler lot looking after themselves? I guess so.

Aren't you about 60yo and "retired", lowerLube? Don't you think you're a little old to be carrying on like you do here?

Le 3rd Homme
2nd Aug 2007, 09:47
Doggy Doo Doo.
Have a review of some of your ravings in this forum.
By your own definition you qualify as blue collar rabble.
Dont forget where you come from..someone will always remind you.

stubby jumbo
2nd Aug 2007, 11:22
Do us all a favour Scotty Dope and Blah Lerty and start up your own thread -away from us "Blue Collar Cabin Crew -types"

Thread Name suggestion:

Living Life.... on the Bottom of a Budgie Cage

Do us all a favour and take the Far---------Q!

2nd Aug 2007, 11:27
I just love it..... living at the bottom of the budgie cage...... brilliant absolutely brilliant, describes BA lert to a "t"......that is why he is so bitter about CC.......hah hah hah...............
I wont even comment on that other "thing"

2nd Aug 2007, 17:08
Nice. You're on track to have this thread shut down as you did the one on hostie-attitudes, cart. You lot really are quite poorly-bred, aren't you?

that is why he is so bitter about CC.......hah hah hah...............The keen edge of that razor-sharp wit truly is something to behold.

Anyway, girls, this bloke has been been stripped of his dignity and dragged through the mud, all because he pocketed a few chockies. Why can't you just let the poor bastard pick up the pieces and move on?

Rather than re-visiting the entire sordid affair again and again, how about you all just let it go? It's OVER.

He got his job back; good on him. Now the guy probably wants his life back, not hear about the "opinions" of a poorly-spoken peanut-gallery on something he'd obviously rather forget.

Get lives, you tragic drama-queens. lowerLube - get a job, too.

2nd Aug 2007, 20:48
To all Cabin Crew don't bother with little Scotty the Poo as his only intent is to close down threads with Cabin Crew issues.

If you read his other posts you will see what I mean.

He is insignificant and has a Walter Mitty complex.....he is a legend in his own mind....

2nd Aug 2007, 22:03
you're quite right lower.
However scottydope amuses me!
His hatred for CC is astounding!
He must be related to BA Lert or he must have suffered a huge rejection from one of our TCM's
Please continue your diatribe ScungyDope....its an interesting sight into what happens when one does not take their medication on a regular basis.

2nd Aug 2007, 22:16
C'Mon guys,don't bite to people like ScottyDoo.

They look at this as just a pilots site and don't want cabin Crew here.

As LL said they just want to inflame the posts and have the moderator lock the thread.

Do not bite,think of them as a hangover,if you ignore them and go on with your business ..in the end they will go away.

3rd Aug 2007, 07:42
spot on:D:D:D:D:D