View Full Version : QF Longhaul Cabin Crew EBA8 pt 2.

Pages : [1] 2 3

11th Dec 2007, 12:36
Lets try and keep this one on Track.
Restrict discussion to the LH CC EBA8
Let this be a warning to you, folks. Considering your bickering has seen you kicked off the regular Cabin Crew forums I think it is timely to remind you that we welcome you here and value your contribution as operating crew, providing you keep it civil.

It's up to you.

If you choose to let this thread degenerate to handbags at 10 paces again we will delete all cabin crew threads in D&G and you will not be welcome.

Your call, folks.

If you wish to discuss other topics please start another thread

11th Dec 2007, 14:25
just an observation guys but the main agro that goes om these threads is tech crew versus cabin crew......................put cabin crew back in the cabin crew section or create a new one here in [email protected] then techies will know its cabin crew mainly and vica versa

please dont let a few very vocal ones destroy our forums...................there are those of us who do read these forums to see other points of views

you dont need to be einsteen to know that it is the same ones being personnal and vindictive and there is no need for it................we know that and we ignore them

i for one like to read both sides of the equation..............l/haul........s/haul...............mam...............and the new start up crew and what people have to say

if techies have a problem with that then put us back in the cabin crew area and dont just ban the cabin crew but also the techies for bad behaviour

and there is NO excuse for getting personnel......................thats just a cheap shot and i have read that on these forums from both sides

11th Dec 2007, 21:33
The only worrying point for me in the EBA proposition is the 3% per annum salary increase . Looks good at first but with the potential for volatility in world financial markets shouldn't this wage increase be linked to CPI or some other index. Who knows what inflation or interest rates will be in 3 years time? Fixing this aspect of the EBA for 5 years is a bad idea in my view.

12th Dec 2007, 00:43
The EBA needs to be looked at in its entirety.While 3% is a feeble amount the overall package has long term financial benefits.Many of us feel that we are paid well and so long as we didnt lose pay money was not as important as other considerations.
On balance its not a bad deal.

12th Dec 2007, 00:53
Sim, although I don't agree with it, it looks as if 3% is standard across the company. As prunezuess also mentioned in totality the package is also more about our future.

12th Dec 2007, 03:05
I think the EBA being offered is good and will be voting to accept it. I just think in view of the 5year length of the agreement as opposed to the standard 3yrs that a review of the 3% annual increase could have been incorporated in EBA8 if say inflation hit above 5% in any of those years. We now have Kevin07 running the place and Labor has traditionally proved to be big spenders with big inflation to match.Anyone who had a home mortgage in the late 1980's early 90's needn't be reminded of the 17.5% interest rates .
In more recent times ,using year 2000 as an example the CPI was 6.1 % (under Howard). If we get a couple of years like that ,with interest rates to match then the 3% wont look too flash .The devil is in the detail and the risk factor of locking in 3% for 5 years without the possibility of a review .Apart from that I join the majority of L/H ers in congratulating the EBA negotiators MM and SR on a terrific overall outcome.

12th Dec 2007, 08:49
I had look through the agreement and I couldnt find anywhere in the document that states long haul will do 75% of regional flying or will have exclusive access to the 787 when flown internationally. Can someone tell the clause where it states this?

12th Dec 2007, 08:57
Not part of the agreement but this is part of the latest info sent by Steve and Michael........

4. Currently, Long Haul crew are guaranteed 30% of the flexible flying pool “regional flying” and Short Haul 25% with the Company able to choose where the remaining 45% is allocated.
5. The FAAA has secured Qantas’ 45% of the flexible flying pool for the Long Haul division on top of the 30%, which effectively gives Long Haul crew 75% of regional flying. International flying is now back where it logically belongs.


Whilst not perfect I'll most certainly be voting yes to the EBA.

12th Dec 2007, 09:14
The answer to the two questions you ask galleyhag is that several matters including the two issues you raise cannot be contained in an EBA due to legal restrictions (prohibited content).

This is being explained to all FAAA members attending the FAAA EBA meetings which are continuing every day as we speak.

The committments you refer to are however, contained in seperate documents that sit outside the EBA.

Any member can get a copy of these documents upon request to the FAAA.

However, to avoid confusion, the seperate documents with the guarantees that you refer to, cannot be "clumped" together with the actual EBA document.

The FAAA explained that this was the most complex and complicated set of negotiations and it is .

I hope that answers your questions galleyhag.

Once again, any queries should be directed, directly to the FAAA negotiators, it is way too complex to try to explain in several paragraphs on a web site.

12th Dec 2007, 09:38
Thank-you for the information. Yes I read the detail on the faaa website however in all the information released by Qantas to date they make no mention of the 75% share of regional flying and all they say about the 787 is that long haul crew will have "access" to this aircraft you would think such big selling points would be highlighted in any company information however as you say the faaa and qantas have seperate agreements so that answers my questions. Thanks.

12th Dec 2007, 09:54
You are welcome.

12th Dec 2007, 10:22
The company late yesterday afternoon advertised the availability of fixed term contracts for Jet Connect crew in MEL base to start as of next bid period.

A number of concerns come to mind -
how does this fits in with the proposed EBA8 considering the current one is yet to finish. Is it a tease or a warning shot?
How will flying be allocated? What is the additional flying they are needed for?
Also, what impact will this have for any crew waiting on news of potential transfers?Interesting times indeed!

stubby jumbo
12th Dec 2007, 10:33
I for one am a bit over all the back slapping ( Union/Guardian et al & the Visitors) going on over this EBA.

'Heard a rumour that the Visitors all went out for massive "nosh up" at a 5 star restaurant.........all laid on, after the agreement was announced-courtesy of Darth & Black Widow.
The Visitors cannot wipe the smirk off their faces. They know that with another 3 x VR's over the next 5 years -they will effectively clean out all us "old time excrement".
Bring on the NEW BREED...........whooo hooooooo.
Compliant,willing, youthful and paid peanuts.:hmm:
No wonder Darth came out of the bunker with such a rousing endorsement. Their bonuses are going to whoppers in 6 months time.

BUT,......I still can't help but think that in 10 years time as the "Cheese & Ham Croissant"-A-380 is bobbing along the airways from LAX-SYD and the Y/C crew have just completed their 3rd round of "offerings" with 2 to go. Someone will be heard mumbling in the 2nd Aft Service Centre:

"Those bastards really sold us in with that EBA8 10 years ago. We are being paid crap for what we do. My uncle use to fly as a FSD on the classics in the 1990's...........he still bangs on about the $110K/year he use to bring home and only do 182 hrs a BP".
"Yeah....can't agree more , any way Jane I'm off now on my third 30min break !":rolleyes:

Anyway for me, I'm alright Jack

I'll be voting -YES:D

I'll take the $3K-buy a 106cm Plasma with it, wait for the 2nd redundancy in 2009 then head down to the South Coast to retire.

See you at the Vincentia RSL.....Keno anyone ?

In this case,..... we will not be the ones to reap what we sowed !

12th Dec 2007, 10:41
Qantas has announced that if the EBA is voted up then all the new 2000 cabin crew planned for the next couple of years will be employed under the terms of the new EBA.

They have announced the promotions that will underpin the 1st tranch of regional flying coming back. bear in mind that they have to resource plan months ahead.

The positions in melbourne are the 1st of the recruits in preparation for the companys expectation that the eba will be approved.

The 16 crew will be placed on reserve and if the EBA is voted up their fixed terms contracts will be converted to positions in Long HAul on the new conditions.

Transfers from Melb to Sydney will take place as soon as the EBA is voted up and the new recruitment into melb in particular starts to take effect.

If the EBA is defeated then all the current promotions will be cancelled and the company will then be free to promote in the overseas bases and employ on any conditions that the law provides for

12th Dec 2007, 11:01
stubby jumbo

Sad but true it will be the children of current crew in 10 years time that will reap what current crew sow and be earning half what their parents earned and working more hours for it. I personally do not blame the faaa or current crew as there is no other realistic alternative but it is sad that current crew will now destroy all of the hard fought terms of conditions the faaa and long term crew are so proud of achieving.

12th Dec 2007, 11:11
12 years ago British Aiways introduced a B scale for crew. Its taken until now but instead of the A crew being dragged down the opposite has occured, the B scalers now get the same money as the A scalers.

The challenge will be working with the new crew to improve their conditions over time.

First we create the jobs here and then we improve their conditions over time.

Unless the jobs are created in the 1st place its all academic

fright attendant
12th Dec 2007, 22:59
I am trying to make sense of this section of the new EBA....think it needs to be rewritten to make it clearer.

27.7.1 The Company may assign QCCA employees to language patterns to ensure any vacant language slots are
filled, after the awarding of Qantas language speaker flying line holder bids but prior to assigning Qantas
language speaker flying line holders language trips.[/B]

Does this mean that the new "B Scale" crew that are Priority 1 Language badge holders, will be allocated language trips BEFORE non-language "A Scale" crew, as the language bid runs are done first. If so, then is this a loophole that the company can use to grab slots on trips for the new QCCA employees before the "Moheicans" can get a look-in...??

13th Dec 2007, 03:13
Was told by a longhaul friend that B scale crew will be payed approx $21.00 per hour. Half of what current crew are paid. Is this true??? I thought the new pay scale was 25-30% less not 50% less.

13th Dec 2007, 06:27
Full language lines for certain languages were part of the previous EBA, and to be honest would be less desirable for most crew considering that language speakers in the past have wanted to relinquish badges.

The EBA continues to restrict the number of language speakers on each aircraft and that number has not been increased with this EBA.

new Language speakers will only be assigned language slots is those slots remain after other language bidders have left slots unfilled.

New language speakers will not be treated any different to the way that previous EBA's treated new recruits.

The System for language speakers in unchanged

13th Dec 2007, 06:46
With the % number of foreign based crew effectively meaning that there will be a significant increase in numbers of overseas based crew, what impact is this going to have on us?

Lets say they increase the numbers in the AKL base and give them more of the States flying that they seem to be getting so much of now. Am i correct in stating they operate patterns to the US from AKL, back to Aus, the back to the US, finally back to AKL? If these numbers were to increase, we potentially will find them doing more States flying than us, with more of us Longhaulers restricted to a smaller pool of flying.

Its all well and good that we get to bid in seniority for flying, and the new Crewing company then gets to share the remainder, but what provisions are there restricting the flying being given to the overseas based crew?

I have not been at work for a long while, and won't be returning soon. Also I cannot make it to the briefings hence asking questions here.

And once again, why is it that QF are so happy about this deal? That alone makes me cringe with fear.

13th Dec 2007, 07:27
The prohibited content provisions of the industrial laws restrict the ability to control the work given to the overseas based crew. They are employed in a foreign jurisdiction and the fAAA has no control over their work even if they were able to by law.

Secondly, any as a result of this eba a cap of 25% will exist. Without the EBA there will be no limit to the number of crew that can be employed overseas. if you were going to vote for the eba for nothing other than the cap it contains you would be sensible but it contains so many more benefits.

Under the FAAA negotiated eba if the company wants to employ 25 more overseas crew they must employ 75 crew in our backyard. Given that without this concession they can do anything they like crew would be insane to vote no.

Literally if the EBA goes down i would suggest that the company could terminate the EBA, keep us in work for 12 more months while recruiting a replacement workforce through QCCA and then terminate us without redundancy pay in 12 months.

If you think i am wrong just ask any of the tristar workers......wake up and smell the roses, the world has changed even if we still live in the land that time forgot!!!

This EBA is incedibly good compared to the alternative. flight attendants will be the masters of their own destiny if they listen to the uneducated crap and vote no.

13th Dec 2007, 08:12
This EBA is giving LH a lifespan of 5 years. After that the number of QCCA FAs will be high enough to get rid of LH seniority once and for all, conditions also will come back to B Scale, JetStar becomes QANTAS, QANTAS Win... etc.

The B scale FAs will be crazy to do the job for the pay that they are offering. They will be on less than $900 a fortnight after tax!

Thanks for coming!:rolleyes:

13th Dec 2007, 08:36
With the way the union is saying we are all totally stuffed without this EBA, why on earth would the company agree to this deal if they could get by with shafting us without it? Think about the perspective of QF. It is no secret they see us as one of the more overpaid groups in the company, so if they could shaft us they would. Why on earth would they offer us so much if they could get rid of us through other means? From the unions rhetoric, it sounds like QF would be much better without this EBA from their perspective.

Also, if we didn't get this offer from the company, there would be unlimited foreign crew, and we would all be redundant in 12 months time? Whatever happened to the protections our current EBA afforded us in the meantime. Even if it has expired, my understanding is that they still have to honour the agreement until another one is negotiated.

Why did the union advocate so largely a Labor government vote? Now they have what they want, why not wait until the senate brings in the new laws albeit a few months away that gives us a much stronger bargaining position? Labor has changed nothing so far, yet everyone is in a rush to sign of an agreement citing the unfair workchoices law as having us over the barrel. So have we gained anything at all from the change in government?

Personally, the whole agree to this or the company will make us extinct argument has me a bit sceptical. It really is no secret the company would love to see us extinct in our current form, so why are they giving us more than we expected?

I am very worried there is some form of hidden agenda lurking somewhere on either one or both sides of the fence with this one.

Not saying vote no, just wanting more answers.

13th Dec 2007, 09:17
South side, the smartest thing that you could do is ring the fAAA tommorrow and talk to one of the negotiating team and have this debate with them . or better still go to a meeting and ask the question yourself and the union will answer in front of everyone.

Qantas does not want to have a war with its workers if it can get the flexibility it needs in a negotiated way.

However, if after 2 years of patient negotiation with tthe FAAA culminating with 8 hours a day for the last 6 weeks of full time negotiation the final settlement is rejected by crew.... why would they spend any more time negotiating with LH crew....

They MUST start negotiations with SH FAAA for their EBA in mid January...THINK ABOUT IT??????

If you think that by taking strike action you will get a better deal then talk to your fellow crew members about what more they want and how long they are prepared to take industrial action for like the LAME's are contemplating.

Bear in mind LAME's are a lot harder to replace and have "real" qualifications...

You will find that 50% of crew wouldnt dream of taking industrial action particularly the females and the Asian crew....Not being sexist or rascist at all just a fact of life...we are not wharfies..... Crew are not the same ppl who striked in 1981 over the SP

Trust me i would go out for a month but i would be among very few that would

your solution to our dilemna would be warmly welcomed

13th Dec 2007, 21:59
As with most EBAs ,emotions run high and imformation flies around that is often inaccurate.
Thank you to Pegasus for providing not only a cool head but accurate information.
This EBA is a major turning point.Everyone who is eligible to vote needs to have as much accurate information as possible in order to make an informed decision.
This EBA is complex and requires a great deal of thought and study.
Thanks again to Pegasus for making the information a little more digestible

14th Dec 2007, 03:50
Australia: Qantas-union deal will set new benchmark to cut pay and conditions
By Terry Cook
7 December 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
Without even the pretence of a fight, the Flight Attendants Association Australia (FAAA), covering 3,000 Australian-based long-haul cabin crew at Qantas, has accepted a retrograde agreement that will slash pay and conditions for 2,000 new starters.
Under the five year deal—estimated to save Qantas $40 million a year—new recruits will be paid $55,000 a year, including allowances, or 25 percent less than the current long-haul staff. At the same time, they will be required to work 30 percent more hours, or 250 hours across an eight-week roster. In effect, hourly wages have been cut by more than half.
The deal was struck on November 27, just days after the election of the Rudd Labor government. Unless the agreement is rejected by Qantas workers, it will establish a new benchmark for dismantling longstanding working conditions and wages, not only in the airline industry but across every industry sector. Not surprisingly, financial commentators immediately proclaimed it as a “landmark agreement”.
Facing a rising Australian dollar and fierce international competition, companies are seeking to cut costs and boost productivity by imposing ever-greater levels of “flexibility” in the workplace. A similar process is underway around the world. Auto workers in the US suffered a huge setback last month when their unions rammed through an agreement cutting new starters’ wages in half. In Germany, France and Italy, major inroads are being made into the conditions of transport workers.
Far from protecting the rights of working people, the new Rudd government has already signalled to big business that “productivity” and competitiveness will be its priority. The FAAA’s rush to sign the Qantas deal is a sharp warning of the role that the unions will play under Labor in enforcing the demands of business and suppressing any opposition from workers.
To assist the FAAA to push the deal through ratification by its members, Qantas agreed to a few minor incentives for existing Australian-based long-haul crews. These included a 3 percent pay rise, an increase in the company’s superannuation contribution to at least 10 percent and an extension of paid maternity leave from 10 to 12 weeks. Management also threw in a $3,000 sign-off bonus for each attendant and agreed to maintain a 25 percent cap on hiring cabin crews overseas.
The company and the union immediately presented the new agreement as a win-win outcome.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon heralded the deal as “a positive outcome for all concerned,” saying “it will help provide the level of competitiveness Qantas must have in the highly competitive international aviation industry”. Dixon has presided over the slashing of 1,500 long-haul cabin crew jobs since 2001 and thousands more jobs in maintenance and catering.
FAAA international secretary Michael Mijatov hailed the outcome as “overwhelmingly positive”. He declared the union had “secured the future of existing cabin crew and beyond that improved their pay and conditions”. He even claimed a victory, saying “we’ve secured 2,000 good quality Australian jobs—jobs that would otherwise been sent overseas”.
In fact, the union has signed off on a two-tier wage structure that will inevitably be exploited by management to exert enormous pressure for further cutbacks to the wages and conditions of cabin crew generally. A blog by one Qantas long-haul crew member warned that the agreement “tells Qantas that you think that your job is worth Jetstar wages. If you agree to this you can never defend us getting a higher rate of pay for the same job”.
In 2004, Qantas set up a cut-price domestic carrier, Jetstar, by recruiting from the large pool of displaced staff from failed airlines such as Ansett and placing them on inferior wages and working conditions. The new benchmark was then imposed on crews recruited to its low-cost Jetstar International. Now, with the FAAA’s complicity, Jetstar conditions have been used to determine those for Qantas new starters.
The FAAA’s main concern all along has been to maintain its role as industrial policeman and defend its dwindling membership base. Far from defending jobs, the FAAA is assisting management in using the threat of moving jobs offshore to pressure its members into accepting a huge wage cut for new starters.
Just two weeks into the current contract negotiations, Qantas announced that it had set up a new recruiting subsidiary—Qantas Cabin Crew Australia Pty Ltd (QCCA). The timing of the move was clearly designed to create the impression that the company planned to shift more jobs offshore if it did not get all it wanted in negotiations.
The union is using the implied threat to stifle resistance to the deal. Mijatov told the media: “I think some of my members feel that the FAAA may be exaggerating the [outsourcing] threat to long-haul crews.” He warned that the establishment of the new hiring company “clearly demonstrated the threat”.
The FAAA has proposed no action to combat the threat or indeed any campaign at all. Any genuine fight to defend jobs would necessarily require a joint campaign with lower-paid flight crew based in London, Auckland and Bangkok, and airline workers internationally, for better wages and conditions for all.
The collaboration of the FAAA with Qantas is no aberration. Like every other union, the FAAA accepts the framework of the profit system and therefore the right of companies to slash costs to be competitive in the world market. It argues that workers have to ensure the viability of their “own” national corporations, placing them in direct competition with other workers around the world.
Even now Qantas is under pressure to prepare a new round of cost-cutting. In August the company announced a record net profit of $720 million—up 50 percent on last year—but it confronts new rivals in Australia and internationally. Budget airlines such as Tiger Airways and Virgin are seeking a bigger slice of the long-haul market to Asia, as well as the domestic market.
The first step in mounting a campaign to defend jobs, wages and conditions is to defy the union, reject the FAAA-Qantas deal and to turn to other sections of workers in Qantas and across the airline industry in Australia and internationally for support. If this agreement is not thrown out, it will become the launching pad for a new round of restructuring and job losses in the airline and throughout the industry as a whole

another way of looking at this EBA:hmm:

14th Dec 2007, 04:10
"another way of looking at this EBA :hmm:"

The only way of looking at this EBA.

A very sensible summation of the ramifications of this EBA - which will get up by a huge majority I would suggest.

14th Dec 2007, 04:25
You were partly responsible for having the previous EBA thread closed.
Lets not go down that road again.
The post by Mr. Paxing is an article from the Socialist Left Tabloid.
View it in that context.

14th Dec 2007, 04:32
The article posted by Mr.Paxing has been doing the rounds as an email.It should be noted that Terry Cook writes for the World Socialist Left...a small Fringe magazine with a small readership that peddles a socialist class war ideology

14th Dec 2007, 04:36
Funbags was responsible for the closure of the previous EBA Thread.
Please dont feed the Troll.
This person is not a Cabin Crew Member nor a member of the FAAA

14th Dec 2007, 04:44
"This person is not a Cabin Crew Member nor a member of the FAAA"

....and is therefore not allowed to offer an opinion on a public rumour network! :rolleyes:

14th Dec 2007, 04:54
what the media publishes. is it going to change the outcome of the EBA? i dont think so. i am waiting for the CD to study in detail what's on offer. ;)

14th Dec 2007, 05:11
The above article is from the "World Socialist Website" - link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/qant-d07.shtml). As already stated, it is not from the mainstream media. I actually agree with some of what it says, but unfortunately, we are kind of in a corner. It is not our fault that we currently find ourselves in this undesirable position. But we really do not have any way of fighting against this at present. We would be mad to try... for now. So let's just accept this EBA and vote yes.

Who knows what things will be like in 5 years time. That could be our chance to fight back and get better wages and conditions for all Australian cabin crew.

PS: MrPaxing, you should really post your source when you post an article like that.

14th Dec 2007, 05:26
I agree with you flug....... the reason mrpaxing obviously didn't source that article, of course, as you know, is that it destroys its credibility.

After all the World Socialist Website is more interested in pursuing class struggles issues which for the mainstream is a ideology that is a relic from the last century.

MM contacted Terry White and is yet to hear from him.

If crew were to listen to the call to "revolution" from Terry White and the leftists that he represents, they truly would be committing a collective act of suicide.

I think L/H crew are far too sensible for that! :)

14th Dec 2007, 05:57
is an email doing the rounds as pointed out here. i don't know the author or were it was published. however i knew i get a response on this forum.
whilst we are here can i get some clarification on the following clause
5.1 Cabin Crew may be employed on a casual basis to meet the Company’s unplanned operational requirements.
Any restrictions?
And there is more
A Flight Attendant deadheading on Qantas aircraft will be confirmed in Economy class and may be upgraded to
Premium Economy or Business Class subject to space availability on the day. Customer Service Managers and Customer Service Supervisors will be confirmed in Economy Class and may be upgraded to the highest class
available subject to space availability on the day.
9.3 An employee deadheading on other carriers will be booked in economy class and there will be no entitlement to

14th Dec 2007, 06:25
the upgrade provisions for current crew are contained in part 1...ie upgradeable to the highest class available. New crew employed under part 2 will only be upgraded as high as business class unless they are a csm or css and then upgraded to the higher class

We have never been entitled to upgrade on other carriers and all these words are a direct lift from the current EBA

be careful when reading the EBA that you read the part 1 that applies to current crew.

You cannot restrict casual employment by law and the clause is consistent with what must be there by law, however Qantas has no need or intention to have casual crew in long haul given the flexibility of the new hire arrangements

Its really good to see crew actually reading the document for the 1st time ever :)

it will mean if nothing else, crew will understand their conditions and rules much better

14th Dec 2007, 07:11
$33475 is $643.75 a week BEFORE tax
Poverty line couple with 2 children $672.06 a week AFTER tax
Single mun with 2 kids $556 AFTER tax.
So FAAA are happy with pay for FA below the poverty line.
So the average Australian has to pay their tax so Qantas FA can get Centrelink payments to keep them above the poverty line
Just wonderful

14th Dec 2007, 07:49
22.12 The Employee agrees to undergo any reasonable medical examination or testing if and when required by the Company.:=

14th Dec 2007, 09:16
The New Crew Hires will not have family,nor a mortgage.The job and its Tand Cs is not designed to attract married people
The average 19 year old will find $34K fairly attractive.
QF wants young single people who will stick around for about 5 years.
Burn and Churn.
There is always the opportunity for ground work when flying burns you out.
Otherwise...you look elsewhere.
But do as many courses through QF College as you can so you take them into the real world.

red or white
14th Dec 2007, 19:03
33k for a first year FA, This includes everything inlcuding leaveloading?So how much do you think they will clear min with allowances a year before tax????

14th Dec 2007, 21:28
On top of the base salary. a flight attendant will recieve overtime the same as current crew , that is, double time from 12-14 hours and double time and a half over 14 hours. Also they will recieve and incidentals allowance of $2.60 per block hour and meal allowances that for current crew are about 15-20K per annum (largely non taxable)

Six weeks annual leave. 3 months LSL after 10 years, 15 days sick leave pa, super at 10% company contribution, staff travel benefits and merit selection and access to promotions to CSS base salary 55K and CSM base Salary 70K

Compare these conditions to Jet Star Intl, or Tiger or Casuals at MAM , and better still its not for us to say whether the conditions are good or not, ask the people who are lining up for the jobs......

We can be a little too arrogant at times to suggest that the young people shouldnt have a job opportunity hear unless they can earn what we are earning...

Lets face it..of the rest of Australia was still on 1974 Conditions and Salarys that had grown exponentialy we would be like Zimbabwe..a basket case.

Lets remember how we have been fortunate to hang on to what we have while things have changed dramatically for the rest of "unskilled" Australia.

The fact that an 18 can be recruited to do our job and do it quite well in a short period of time with minimal training should give the arrogant ones here something to reflect about....we are NOT pilots or CEO's and are VERY easily replaceable as we will find out if the EBA is defeated let me assure everyone

I for one am VERY concerned about a future without at EBA

14th Dec 2007, 22:28
i do agree with most of your logical arguments and explanations. however, the following clause needs to be removed. as you know it is open and will be be explored by the company.
22.12 The Employee agrees to undergo any reasonable medical examination or testing if and when required by the Company.:=
if my doctor or any other designated aviation medical examiner ,i choose is not good enough, there is a major problem. you have to go to the high court to have "reasonable medical examination" tested.

stubby jumbo
15th Dec 2007, 00:34
Peg, I usually agree with most things you post.

BUT, the post about securing the EBA for QCA, THEN trying to improve these T&C's over time reminds me of a scene out of the movie The Castle.
The Qantas view at any improvements would be:


15th Dec 2007, 07:10
Can i just say that in response to the reasonable medical testing and medical examination...at law it would constitute what is known as " a reasonable direction from an employer"...

If the any employer has a reason to believe that you are not capable of doing your job they can ask you to undergo a reasonable medical examination or test. If you are using narcotics or alcohol such that it would impair your ability to do your job, or would be in contravention of your contract of employment it would be 'reasonable'.

Having said that, if they wanted you to go and get tested for spurios reasons the fAAA would intervene as it has for flight attendants in the past and notify a dispute in the AIRC. Both current and new crew will have the FAAA representing them is such a way in the future.

In relation to improving the new starters conditions over time , that is precisely what we did with STaff Travel for new hires and exactly what BA crew did over time to get their B scale up to A scale over time.

As a good sort with a Kiwi Accent once said..It wont happen overnight but it WILL happen. :)

and i wasnt referring to LG :)

15th Dec 2007, 10:38

The FAAA strongly recommends that you vote YES in the upcoming ballot to approve the in-principle EBA8.

By approving EBA8, our members are securing their job security, protecting and enhancing their existing conditions and providing future generations of Australians with good quality jobs as Qantas Long Haul cabin crew.


• Ongoing job security.
• Your current income is protected.
• NO extra hours of work.
• Your bid system is protected and finally the bid system will be “unfrozen”, resulting in a significant increase in choice and improved quality flying for all crew, particularly,our current “junior” crew, who will no longer be junior.
• All new wide bodied aircraft that are configured internationally will be flown by existing L/H crew eg. B787-900.
• 75% of the flexible flying pool (commonly referred to as regional flying) will be done by existing L/H crew, rather than the current 30%.
• A continuing cap on overseas bases.
• No promotions for overseas crew apart from LHR.
• Thousands of new cabin crew joining our ranks.
• Thousands of new good quality full time Australian jobs – where there was not going to be 1 extra new job.
• A 15% pay rise during the term of the EBA.
• A $3000 bonus for each crew member.
• Massive promotional opportunities for existing crew.
• Ongoing protection of the redundancy formula.
• A last on first off process will apply in the event of compulsory redundancies.
• Unlimited part time opportunities for existing crew.
• Only 19 “A” days on reserve for part time crew rather than 38.
• Protection of accommodation standards and meal allowances.
• The ability to salary sacrifice your compulsory superannuation contribution (an effective wage increase).
• All crew can salary sacrifice for cars, laptops and QF provided childcare
• Choice of superannuation fund.
• The continuing exclusive access to at least 1 flight per day to London.
• A continuation of the free upgradeable return ticket to LHR for those who have not used it.
• Ongoing access for existing crew to the A380 with effective “salary maintenance arrangements”.
• Increased maternity leave from 52 to 104 weeks.
• Paid maternity leave will be increased from 10 to 12 weeks.
• Our Long Service leave entitlement is inserted into the EBA for the first time.
• Our meal allowances are inserted into the EBA for the first time, thus protecting them.
• Flight attendants with 4 years service can apply for a CSM position.


The above extensive benefits, protections and a secure future for our members disappear.

We then go back to the situation that existed prior to the announcement of this EBA. Qantas is due to commence negotiations with Short Haul in January 2008. There will be no imperative or requirement for Qantas to re-open negotiations with Long Haul.

The fact is that there are a multitude of crewing and industrial options available to Qantas. These options could include but are not limited to the termination of our EBA, offering AWA’s to existing crew, QCCA could employ without any reference to the FAAA, Qantas could increase the numbers of overseas crew, in addition to promoting overseas etc.

To summarise, the FAAA has put in a massive effort to achieve this excellent outcome for our members. It has been achieved in an environment where L/H was in the process of being phased out of existence. The FAAA through diligent, exhaustive and competent effort has created an opportunity for the membership to reverse a terrible situation. This negotiated outcome provides for unprecedented security and protection of our very good conditions, whilst providing for thousands of good quality permanent full-time jobs for future generations.

The choice is now in your hands. How you vote will determine our collective future. The FAAA urges ALL crew to participate in this historic EBA vote. If you do not vote you will be allowing others to determine your future; and in doing so you will be forced to accept the consequences of such an outcome, even if that outcome is different to what you wanted.

Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.

Big Barrels
15th Dec 2007, 10:51
If we vote no, the world ends and QF is rid of its LHCC, something we all know it would love to do.

So why did they offer us so much to vote yes? Many people are quite open in stating they would vote yes for much less.

15th Dec 2007, 11:19
1.QF has its LHCC "mohican" numbers just about right.
2.A massive period of expansion with new aircraft types requires experienced people.
3.QF profit is skyrocketing....the product is/has been suffering due to cost cuts........there aint much left to cut.
4.Perhaps some genius has woken up to the fact that LHCC actually make a large contribution to the QF product...why else why we get so much of our flying back from the domestics?We do it a lot better than they do.
5.The change of Federal government
6.The FAAA fought the good fight under the circumstances
Dont Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth....

15th Dec 2007, 11:38
If the numbers of LHCC are just right, I'll bet that there will be another VR offer before the ink is dry on EBA8:yuk:

15th Dec 2007, 12:14
i woould not count on a VR for some time...i would think that with the expansion that Qantas is planning atm, there will be no vR anywhere in flying for the near future.

Can I say that the FAAA negotiating team, has been working on the EBA for over two years, holding meetings at the highest level of the Company.

This EBA is the culmination of much unseen work. Its not a gifthorse at all. Its the product of skilled negotiation on both sides.

When a house goes on the market a deal is struck when the buyer and the seller are both happy :)

15th Dec 2007, 12:56
Guys, get to the meetings and get the straight facts. Don't listen to galley gossip or people who don't have the guts to put their name to spurious emails. Read all the documentation that has been put out. If you don't understand something get on the phone asap to the FAAA and they will answer your concerns. We all need to wake up and recognise the consequences if we vote no. Congrats to the FAAA on what you have delivered. I am not a 'union stooge' but LHCC with 15yrs experience and will be voting YES.

15th Dec 2007, 22:55
I cant believe that people on this forum are pushing so hard to get this thing up. This EBA will overwhelmingly be accepted when it goes to the vote.

The "what's in it for me" factor will ensure that the EBA is voted up by a huge majority. I just pity the poor B-Scalers that have to fly with you guys and gals, on much poorer pay and conditions as a result of this EBA. :eek:

15th Dec 2007, 23:20
Funbags is a techie troll who is on a fishing expedition.
Lets not get side tracked...dont feed the troll.
Our EBA affects no one but us..it certainly doesnt affect this"funbags "troll

15th Dec 2007, 23:39
"Funbags is a techie troll who is on a fishing expedition.
Lets not get side tracked...dont feed the troll.
Our EBA affects no one but us..it certainly doesnt affect this"funbags "troll"

Whether you like it or not Surfy, this EBA will affect all those poor people who will be future Mainline LHCC, on inferior pay and conditions. These are not overseas based crew or MAM or whatever. They are Mainline LHCC who will be on a B-Scale when this EBA gets up.

Also, I see you have resorted to name calling. So if this thread is closed we know who's fault that will be.

radiation junkie
16th Dec 2007, 00:22
Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of EBA8. Get yourself to a FAAA meeting, as I have, and you will be enlightened to the real values and possible unsavoury alternatives of EBA8. With out this aggreement there in no future for LHCC. It's that simple. The new company QCCA that Dixon and Greg have created will churn out new crew by the 1000's regardless of EBA8 or not. The fact that the FAAA has through the last couple of years negotiation, ensured they are part of the LHCC EBA and not just a cheap contract ( overseas ) crew to take our LH jobs away. Just the facts....

16th Dec 2007, 01:20
I suspect Funbags is a troll with his/her mindset firmly stuck in the 1970's.Wearing his flared trousers ,paisley muscle shirt with long collar ( sans muscles) he spends his time locked in his bedsit listening to The Bay City Rollers,smoking hooch and spilling Cold Duck on his shag pile carpet. For light entertainment he reads back copies of The World Socialist News or his most prized possession ,his first edition of Das Kapital.Refusing to accept that time marches on he puts on his size 9 platform shoes , looks in the mirror , trims his 70's porn star moustache , lights a Viscount and heads out at night looking for groovy disco's that no longer exist. Dejected and with nothing better to do , he heads for home and his trusty 486 thinking "I know I'll do the right thing by Trotsky and shite stir the L/H F/A's on Pprune".Wow ! What a gas !

16th Dec 2007, 01:31
You guys seem to delight in playing the man and not addressing the issue. Which in my opinion (and I am entitled to one, as this is a public rumour network!), is selling out future Mainline LHCC to look after yourselves short term.

Or take the three grand and run! :ugh:

16th Dec 2007, 01:48
I have just looked at the T&C's of the B'scalers and have advised my 21 yo daughter to apply.The thought of looking down the other end of the meal cart during a meal service and seeing her scares me but knowing that she will have a solid permanent F/T Australian Based F/A job ( having previously applied for Dubai based Emirates) makes me believe there is a future at QF for her particularly if she is later promoted to CSS and CSM.
Not more than a month ago when the Libs where in power she was looking down the barrel at NO job prospect at QF mainline (where there has been no new L/H crew hired for years) or an AWA job at Jetstar or a MAM casual at Short Haul or moving lock stock and barrel to AKL. This is a huge improvement on those options.
I dont have an issue with the B scale . We have it now when the person on the other end the cart is BKK or AKL based. It is unfortunately the way of the world ,call it evolution .If we dont adapt, like the dinosaurs we dissappear and my daughter's future job goes offshore.Meanwhile fellow Uncas I am voting yes.It’s a no brainer.

radiation junkie
16th Dec 2007, 05:58
sim, grow up. I agree with your last post, but your comments towards funbags are uncalled for and take this thread another step to the dustbin. Funbags just can't or won't see the big picture. As mentioned, funbags, get yourself to an FAAA meeting and get the facts. Future LHCC are not being sold out. They are being given a reason to exist and thus promote growth for Mainline numbers. Yes, this is a public rumour network, you are entitled to your opinion as we all are. But your opinion is based emotional issues, rather than facts.

16th Dec 2007, 06:11
i think most of the emotion is quite valid as we are talking about important issues like the livelohoods of over 3000 flight attendants and their families. If we get this wrong and make emotional decisions rather than informed decisions we could end up like the manufacturing industry in Australia...virtually non existant....

Go to FAAA meetings. go to the FAAA website and read the material and think about your future.... it will either be one with growth or one with more redundancies

16th Dec 2007, 06:20
Mods, can we ban this person (funbags) from this forum. Sure, we are all entitled to our own opinions and this is a public forum. But this person is here to antagonise us and is a lot of the reason the previous thread deteriorated so much.

Calling us selfish and heckling us - "What's in it for me, me me!" - is obviously going to incite anger.

There are no cabin crew out there who are happy to be agreeing to lower wages and conditions for our future colleagues, but it also beyond our control. These wages and conditions are going to happen, with or without us. If anything, our FAAA has managed to get more for the new starters than they would have otherwise had.

We are lucky to have started when we did and to have the pay and conditions we currently have. We are even luckier to have managed to hold onto this, given the many nasty options the company has.

Voting yes to this EBA is NOT selling out. Voting yes to this EBA will protect us as well as all the new starters. And as I have previously said, we will hopefully become stronger in the future and more able to fight the battle for better wages and conditions then.

The $3000 bonus is not an incentive for any flight attendants. To suggest it is, is an insult. We wouldn't "sell out" new starters for $3000. Not even for $30000. Funbags seems so fixated on this, maybe he is jealous that he isn't getting it?? Funbags, get lost. Go and play somewhere else.

16th Dec 2007, 06:52
guys dont get upset with the stirrers....ask them for a solution and make them come up with an alternative...

If it involves a "no smile day" i think we will identify the protagonist lol

If it involved some kind of Industrial warfare you need to ask yourself what more do you want and how long are you prepared to strike to get it..

Bear in mind they train flight attendants in a week or so ..we are not pilots or engineers

16th Dec 2007, 07:00
So...ban someone for having an alternative opinion. The "what's in it for me" line is not antagonism, but a general perception of a lot of Qantas staff from people in and outside of the industry (rightly or wrongly)

My solution (which will never happen) would be to reject the EBA, and attempt to renegotiate an EBA which will preserve existing pay/conditions, but at the same time not sell out future Mainline LHCC. ie not to introduce a B-Scale.

Re being told to attend the FAAA meetings. I am not a member of the FAAA, and do not intend on attending any meetings. But I do know a B-Scale when I see it! Our short haul mates agreed to one a while ago.

16th Dec 2007, 07:34
well said flug and pegasus and agree wholeheartedly! Funbags showed his/her/its lack of intelligence by the last post. As much as I would love to have a go (and I did in the last forum) lets not feed the troll and bait someone who is not even a member of the FAAA.

16th Dec 2007, 08:08

I see you have resorted to name calling again. Just remember alot of your compatriots (who work on the other end of the cart with you) are not FAAA members either. Does that mean you do not give them the time of day either?? I think not! :rolleyes:

16th Dec 2007, 08:58

I respect that you are not a flight attendant, nor a member of the FAAA. From an outsiders perspective many things can appear a certain way. An outsider who has not attended FAAA briefing sessions over the last couple of years would not have had the benefit of significant information that has led the members of the FAAA to reluctantly pursue this course of action.

The FAAA has been discussing this EBA with its members and Qantas management for over 2 years.

Without this EBA Qantas will be free to have unlimited crew overseas or unlimited casuals on vastly inferior conditions to the so call B scale.

Tiger, Virgin, jetstar intl will all have conditions less than the so called b scale. If the positions or conditions are inferior then with almost full employment in Australia Qantas would have great difficulty filling the vacancies. Some how i doubt that will happen.

Qantas will not re negotiate if this EBA is defeated it will just move ahead with its plans without a UNion agreement.

Trust me i have been around for many years and i know what the next move for Qantas will be. The new entry rate was avoidable IF the current crew were prepared to make massive changes to current terms and conditions ...and they were not.

Their lives are linked to currents work conditions and to have massive change for them would not have been voted up.

The alternative whilst philosophically less palatable is nonetheless pragmatic

16th Dec 2007, 09:08
Funbags, 'name calling' thats a bit rich coming from you mate don't you reckon? As Peg correctly put it, unless you have been to a recent meeting you do not have all the facts. Nothing against you personally or your ideology but we are all passionate about our jobs and are keen for growth in our division for both old and new entrants.

16th Dec 2007, 09:09
My solution (which will never happen) would be to reject the EBA, and attempt to renegotiate an EBA which will preserve existing pay/conditions, but at the same time not sell out future Mainline LHCC. ie not to introduce a B-Scale.

The reason your solution will never happen is that all of our past EBA's have been negotiated on that basis and as a consequence we have been watching our flying disappear to cheaper alternatives and have seen no recruitment apart from prospective strike breakers in more than 5 years.
You wouldn't know all this though so I will forgive you.

You should also google the word "troll" as it does apply to you in it's internet forum meaning, and hence cannot be categorized as "name calling".

16th Dec 2007, 09:56
Wikipedia: Troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1] It often has a broader meaning referring to any shady trouble making Internet activity."


16th Dec 2007, 10:32
G'day funbags, you certainly seem to generate a lot of feeling on here. If your intention is to get the eba voted down, then you are failing. STOP NOW. If you are tech crew, sit back and enjoy the bunfight.
Watch and see how the LAMEs get on. That one could get interesting.
And they have a thread if you wish to put your 2 bobs worth in. You might get a slightly more robust response than you do here!

16th Dec 2007, 11:02
Hey funbags, remember the good old days when female pilots were referred to as 'just another empty kitchen'?

16th Dec 2007, 11:53
There seems to be a lot of unhappy employees in the Qantas family.

Reading the Engineers EBA thread they appear close to rejecting it and are considering strike action.

LHCC are also amongst the employees who have been used and abused over the years by management.

It looks like a lot of staff have had a gut full, look at the abuse that Brisbane check in staff copped when they went to help the elderly lady who died. Apparently they are down 90 staff from the same time last year, and management is only doing something after all the bad publicity.

I read the following article tonight.

Qantas trying to avert strike threat

Sunday Dec 16 16:09 AEDT
Qantas says it is working to reduce workplace injuries after staff at Sydney Airport threatened to walk out in the middle of the busy holiday season.
The Transport Workers Union says the airline's baggage and ramp staff are being forced to work in a dangerous environment and are too scared of management to complain, News Limited newspapers report.
The union says industrial action against the airline is "inevitable" and could occur as early as January, impacting on the holiday travel plans of thousands of people.
The airline's 500 baggage and ramp workers are threatening to walk out if Qantas does not fix the problems.
In March, Qantas staff lodged a formal dispute report with the NSW Industrial Commission over working conditions.
Qantas Services Department General Manager Curtis Davies issued a statement saying the carrier's injury rate had decreased every year for the past four years.
He said Qantas had a rigorous safety program in place and the airline invested heavily in equipment and training to reduce the potential for workplace injuries.
"We have been working with our airport staff and the union on introducing mechanical solutions to alleviate heavy lifting," Mr Davies said.
"Our lost time injury rate in the airport environment has been reduced every year for the last four years."
Mr Davies said the airline would be "extremely disappointed" if the union decided to take industrial action and inconvenience Qantas customers.
Transport Workers Union spokesman Tony Sheldon said the dispute focused on staff cuts across the department and the reduction of working teams from six people to five.
Smaller teams increased staff workload and the chance of serious injury, he said.
"There have been a whole range of injuries to workers' legs, arms and backs," he said.
Mr Sheldon said workers were afraid to report some injuries because they feared they would be moved to inferior jobs.

©AAP 2007

If LHCC are considering strike action over their EBA, they will have to wait their turn and get in line.

16th Dec 2007, 11:54
There are those who are affronted by a Cabin Crew presence in the D and G Forum.
Do not be complicit in your own destruction by becoming involved in name calling.
Re read post one of this thread.You are extremely close to being banned from yet another forum.
This forum provides an opportunity for discussion and sharing of information regarding EBA8.
It would be a great pity to lose it.
If you find a particular poster annoying add them to your ignore list.
Do not become involved in a self destructive game

16th Dec 2007, 12:53
thanks AlphaLord. I understand that you are a moderator but your opening sentence of 'people being affronted by a cabin crew presence' is going against what you originally posted. People are obviously emotional about this issue as it is about our livelihood. We are trying to get as many view points across as possible and things obviously get said in the 'heat of battle'. As I said in one of my posts there is no personal malice here towards anyone so can I respectfully suggest you let the forum run. What happens on the field stays on the field.

peanut pusher
16th Dec 2007, 15:22
This EBA is as good as it gets for now.

S/H union is getting a bashing from it's members, just look at the transfer list (s/h to l/h) in the last 2 weeks. It's grown by a massive 300 names.

Come Jan 2008 when s/h union lines up for the EBA neg. if our EBA is not settled then it's a case of give us as much as you can and stuff l/h.

It's not perfect but it's a lot better than I expected.

This EBA will get a 80% ok from the vote because 80% of crew know a good thing when they see it.

The LHR base has had 20 aus crew on uk passports resign to head back home next month to prepare for the QCCA flying interviews.

After flying out of LHR for 3 years I know this is a good deal.

nite walker
16th Dec 2007, 19:27
Question, it appears you have negotiated very competitive rates of pay for the Company ( B scale), given up the majority of the A380 flying and and what little we get ( 20%) on abysmal conditions, and negotiated away the regional slip formula. These are facts.

For this we got the big ticket items amongst a lot of other stuff a 5 year eba, bidding and no extra hours and the big one - gauranteed flying on the 787 - internationally.

My question is what if the 787 does not arrive in the next 5 years due to unforseen production problems. Why hasn't a "sunset" clause been built in on this big issue - or has one?

We have given an awful lot here and I understand why, but the 787 should be locked up tighter than a fishes proverbial for international mohicans as long as they are flying internationally, eagerly awaiting a reply.

16th Dec 2007, 22:05
I am not a moderator.
I am the iniator of this thread.I do not want it closed down.
If it is closed LH CC will have nowhere else to go.
A valuable forum will be lost.

16th Dec 2007, 23:14
Half the problem with the last thread was the constant degrading of shorthaul crew. Didn't you all get banned from the Cabin Crew section after constantly bashing all the London based crew there?

17th Dec 2007, 00:20
As in any group there are always the vocal froot loops who spoil it for others.
So it is with QF LHCC.
Its the Chinese solution...chop off all heads to eliminate the guilty.
Some have an agenda to have the thread closed...they may not necessarily be CC but pretenders.

nite walker
17th Dec 2007, 03:54
Could some one please reply / answer my question please:)

17th Dec 2007, 04:22
For goodness sake nite walker, call the FAAA yourself, here are the numbers:

[email protected]

17th Dec 2007, 04:56
The agreement provides that all new widebodied aircraft flown internationally will be flown by Long Haul crew.

That means the 787-900 and any other aircraft Qantas fly internationally..

if the 787 is delayed or replaced with another type then LONg haul crew will fly it.

17th Dec 2007, 05:11

That means the 787-900 and any other aircraft Qantas fly internationally..

if the 787 is delayed or replaced with another type then LONg haul crew will fly it.


How many hours per roster?

200 odd as per now or will we have to work 220-240 like those who CHOOSE to transfer to the dugong?

17th Dec 2007, 05:19
To solve all the problems of getting banned and closed down in these forums, why don't you take the discussion over to a dedicated Cabin Crew forum such as http://www.cabincrew.com/ccnetwork/default.asp ? It has a dedicated section for Australian and New Zealand based cabin crew. Less likely to be non cabin crew fishing for a bite there.

Even better, perhaps lobby the union to assist in funding and setting up a bulletin board just like the tech crew have with Qroom. Everyone has to use their real names there, and while the discussion can still be lively, there is less likely to be trolling and inflaming of others simply for the sake of it. People tend to stick to the facts more and don't get too silly as they are not anonomous there. It would certainly help the FAAA get their message accross and assist in productive discussions with members. Personal insults and vilification decrease substantially when people have to use their real identities.

17th Dec 2007, 05:27
Thas a bloody good idea , then we needn't sully the hallowed halls of pprune any longer, nor upset anyone . P.S. i love youuuuuse all . Even you Funbags.

17th Dec 2007, 06:04
The only different work rules and hours are for the A380 division

All other new aircraft will come to current long haul crew under part one of the agreement, which is our curent hours etc

nite walker
17th Dec 2007, 09:29
For goodness sake twiggs this thread was initially set up by guardian to discuss the eba, i have attended a meeting and it happens we do think of other questions to ask after the meeting.

I know how busy they are in the office because whenever I bump an official they tell me. With such a major decision to be made this is an excellent site for all crew to hear the different questions, Peg and Guardian have been patient,its no point having this forum then complaining about questions being asked. The rumour by a no voter is that without a sunset clause there is NOTHING in the document to ensure we get it after the 5 years.

After all look what happenned to the A380, 3 years ago we gave over our divisional flying to recieve the A380 exclusive to long haul only to have to re negotiate on it this time. It was promised to be Long hauls , not 20 % and not on LHR base conditions. I thought we had paid for it via sharing long haul regional flying. Why did that come into the negotiation at all?

Surely the new regional 50 hour slip formular and the B scale was more than plenty to secure our regional flying, the 787 and a guaranteed sunset clause.

Years ago we sold off 75% and were promised a good system, no mention of unstacking or D days, where in the document is the guarantee? the sunset clause.

17th Dec 2007, 09:30
Bazzamundi, as posted before the d & g threads are for An independent family of forums covering all aspects of the Australian/NZ aviation scene.
This means everyone who works in aviation not just people who fly planes.
I don't understand why some pilots have a problem with a cabin crew thread.If you don't want to read it you don't have to.
twiggs,don't you think people have the right to find information on the internet or is this just another propaganda thread?
funbags,if you are not cabin crew why does it matter to you about a b scale?From what I hear your union has more problems than you could poke a stick at.I'm not happy with the idea of a b scale but this is a move that was forced on us by another union.
What worries me is that the company is happy with this.They have never been happy unless they have everything their way.

17th Dec 2007, 10:11
Well don't complain if pilots want to contribute to your thread then RedTBar. Read the top left of the page. PPRuNE - Professional Pilots Rumour Network. You cannot post here then complain if people (re pilots) read them and have an opinion. I am sure cabin crew would feel the same if pilots took over the Cabincrew.com website with their discussions.

In reality, the best thing you lot could do is get the FAAA to set up a similar site as mentioned before to Qrewroom. It would really be beneficial in your situation if this is the only internet forum upon which you discuss your industrial issues. I am sure it would not take much, from what I know Qrewroom is run by a single tech crew member in his spare time.

If the FAAA could set this up, it would not take much to make all cabin crew aware of it and would certainly be a good place on which to generate good discussions on industrial issues.

Bolty McBolt
17th Dec 2007, 10:28
Hello Long haul

Have been recently informed/rumour that due to your recent break thru in your EBA that over half of the reginal flying currently done by short haul will return to long haul?

Is this S/H being paranoid or is there truth to the rumour.

Sorry if this sounds like a wind up, but the S/H characters whom informed me seemed bonafide....

Transition Layer
17th Dec 2007, 10:35
Roughly how many days away per bid period would be required to achieve 240hr divisors as proposed for the A380 crew and new hire QCCA crew?

I know LHR base is the same but their flying is very efficient (one 12hr+ sector each way) so would be easier to rack up the hours I imagine. Their 4 day trips aren't really 4 with a late sign on and early sign off (except HKG).

And yes, I'm a QF techie not stirring but rather have an interest in this on my partner's behalf.


17th Dec 2007, 10:59
1.My understanding that if the EBA8 is voted up then LHCC will do approximately 75% of all regional flying.We currently do about 35%.
2.Duty Hour Credits determine how long you are away and therefore how many days you at home.Currently if you complete 6x 4 day LAX trips and one day trip you are away 25 days and home 31 days/Bid Period
.A 4 day LAX trip is worth 31 Duty hour credits.
The A380 will be deployed to LAX,Joburg and LHR.
To build a roster of 240 hours and completing 8x 4 day LAX you would be away 32 days and home 24.Its punishing flying.
An 8 Day LHR is worth 48 hours.
The higher the duty hour credits a trip has /day the more days you spend at home

17th Dec 2007, 11:33
There is an agreement that is between International FAAA, Domestic/Regional FAAA and Qantas called the Divisional Flying agreement (DFA).

The DFA, has a pool of flying called the Flexible Flying Pool (FFP).

The FFP is comprised of the total hours of work represented by International
B767 flying, A330 domestic flying and A330 International flying.

Currently, L/H gets a guaranteed 30% of the FFP, S/H gets a guaranteed 25% of the FFP and Qantas directs the other 45% to whom it wants.

The last 2 years Qantas has directed its 45% to S/H because they are cheaper and more productive. Thus, S/H was and is doing currently about 70% of the FFP.

The L/H EBA8, if approved by L/H crew, will mean that Qantas' 45% will now be directed to L/H, thereby giving 75% of the FFP to L/H.

This means that the overwhelming international component of the FFP will go to L/H, RESULTING IN INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL FLYING RESIDING WITH L/H WHERE IT LOGICALLY BELONGS.

Hope that explains it for you Bolty, and for others who are a bit confused with all this :)

17th Dec 2007, 20:06
Bazza,I don't have any probs with you or anyone making a post.If you want to say something then go for it as long as it is not 'look guys you really shouldn't be here' or multiple 'you guys are greedy for thinking about a b scale'.
I am sure cabin crew would feel the same if pilots took over the Cabincrew.com website with their discussions.
I don't think anyone could say one thread is taking over the entire aviation area in d & g.Since this is about ALL ASPECTS OF AVIATION and cabin crew happen to work in aviation then we are entitled to be here.
A pilot on my last trip told me something and that is the association of drivers union and members accepted an MOU for drivers wanting to transfer to J* from mainline.This is that the drivers accept that they would be on lower pay and conditions if they want to fly for J*
If that is true isn't that a b scale for drivers?

17th Dec 2007, 20:13
I am totally confused about the concept of a sunset clause???

Can someone paraphrase the words it would contain in simple english, as i have no idea what it means.

The EBA that has been negotiated lasts for 5 years which is the max allowed under the law, and as such nearly all current conditions are protected for another 5 years.

What some seem to suggest is that you want a clause to live for more than 5 years...that's unfortunately illegal under Australian LAw.

If we could have a clause that said current crew will be protected forever it would be nice but nonetheless inconsistent with the Law.

Those that are suggesting such a clause are perhaps well meaning but have no concept of whats allowable at law.

17th Dec 2007, 20:40
RedTBar, the MOU that was signed was one which allows QF mainline techcrew the choice of going to Jetstar for a period of time if that is what they wish and choose to do. Yes, the pay is much less, however, that has nothing to do with the tech crew union. The pay issue is between the JPC and their employer.

So far less than 20 have chosen to go accross, mainly for varying personal reasons (ie. no overnights). For some, say an A330 S/O, it can actually work out as a pay rise. They then get a command in less than the time it takes to become an FO in mainline and earn more than any of their SO mates. You have to decide you want to go down that path however, nobody is being forced.

The point being that nobody is forced to go to Jetstar on the substandard terms and conditions. They choose to go if it suits them. Just like Australian based FA's can choose to go to the London base if that is what they want. Nobody is being forced to do so.

The Singapore basing we had in the last EBA was forced upon us by a union who gave us a similar story to what you are hearing now - this is the best deal, you are all finished without it, so vote it up quickly. The basing was actually a pay rise for the people going up there, and they also got to take advantage of the taxation rules in Singapore which basically meant that they would NET a much higher wage.

However, once the old guard (union) was royally booted around the time this EBA was signed off, the new union took issue with the Singapore basing and refused to give ground to the company to allow it to go ahead. In the end there ended up some taxation issues potentially, as well as the cost of living in Singapore. The end result is the Singapore base has not happened much to the delight of most members as this would have been seen as a 'B' scale - conditions not much less than ours, but no choice in whether to go to Singapore or not for new joiners.

As far as the short haul tech crew 'B' scale, this was voted in by the Australian airlines pilots back when the almalgamation happened. Long Haul tech crew had no say in this issue back then. However, since the almalgamation, the short haul 'B' scale has well and truly gone. The long haul and short haul cabin crew have had a lot of issues in the past of one group selling the other out, just like tech crew did back then. However, we are different in that we are pretty much on top of it now.

The Cathay pilots 'B' scale your officials have referred to is pretty much useless in comparison. Hong Kong has much different labor laws pretty much preventing unions doing anything at all to prevent this happening up there. When the 'B' scale was introduced a long time ago in Hong Kong, what could they do about it? At this point in time, Cathay 'B' scalers as they get called are still among the best paid pilots in the world.

17th Dec 2007, 21:50
Bazza, as you know we have two unions which dont agree on many things. however, i must blame primariliy the s/h guys for starting the MAM casuals, reducing band payments for lh transfering to s/h and signing off on the london base. their previous secretary (which has taken a package in the mean time)and the current secretary, former president who was instrumental in backstabbing l/h by cutting the deal of the above mentioned ( she went to london for 2 years,as far as i know). the reason the new cabin crew company is set up, finally someone in qf realised how much the former union official makes out of the MAM casuals (around 1,5 million profit last year).
what i dont like and dont understand is why the faaa wants any transferees from s/h these days. as far as i am concerned all the "old boilers" who want to come across for their "swan song" are a waste of time (lets not even talk about peformance). they just want to pick the best trips, travel in pairs and are anti social. :sad:

17th Dec 2007, 22:10
Pilots are employed for their technical skills.
Cabin Crew are employed for their interpersonal skills
Pilots are licensed..Cabin Crew are not.
The Biggy...Pilots have their foot on the gas pedal.
For pilots the job is a career
When Jet* or some other LCC advertises for CC they are inundated by young hopefuls who would do the job for $20k.
The hopefuls have determined the "B"scale.They have indicated what they think they are worth.The airlines are bringing this figure to the negotiating table.
Try and tell a 20 year old that they are worth more.They would call you an old fart and tell you to bugger off.
They dont see the CC job as a longterm career.They will do it for 3 to 5 years and leave.
The job is either a short time or partime.
As far as money is concerned ...if you have never tasted ice cream you wont miss it.
You dont miss what you have never had.

17th Dec 2007, 22:47
Bazza,say there were 2 pilots unions and both had qantas pilots.One of the unions tells the company that they will do the flying for 25% less.
What does the other union do about it?
What if one pilots union that fly's airbus' tells qantas that they will do the 380 endorsement for less than mainline.Do you think Dixon will say yes or no?

I'm not happy about a b scale but the reality is we are stuck with another union wanting our jobs.

17th Dec 2007, 23:23
This newsletter clearly indicates what will happen if we were stupid enough in L/H to vote against the proposed EBA8.

Clearly others would only be to happy to do our flying, and at that point it's all over for L/H.

Qantas - Short Haul EBA Negotiations/Proposed International Division EBA
FAAA Qantas News

Short Haul EBA Negotiations/ Proposed International Division EBA

As outlined in our Newsletter of November 8, the International Division has been negotiating a new Enterprise Agreement. Further, your Association was awaiting the outcome of the Federal Election in terms of preparation for EBA negotiations early in 2008.

On Saturday 24 November 2007, a Labor government was elected and is currently preparing new legislation to deal with their policy changes on Industrial Relations. On Tuesday 27 November, the International Division announced agreement had been reached with Qantas on a proposed new Enterprise Agreement.

As advised in our communication to members on 29 November and 7 December, the Association would be in a better position to consider the impact on the short haul division once the full details of the proposed EBA were known.

Following a review of the proposed EBA, the Association is of the view there can be no doubt as to the substantial effect on the short haul division. Therefore, we wrote to Qantas seeking a response to a number of specific matters including the following:
• The International Division has advised their members of a guaranteed 75% of regional flying. As a party to the pre-existing Divisional Flying Agreement, the Association has sought a copy of this new agreement to confirm the Company’s intention to allocate this amount of flying to the International Division over the next 5 years.
• The Divisional Flying Agreement carries a requirement for special conditions when Long Haul operates on Domestic sectors. While we understand this will now be an EBA requirement, we sought confirmation that the flying referred to in the proposed EBA, will not be operated outside the provisions and application of the Divisional Flying Agreement.
• Given the short haul establishment has been determined on current flying allocation, members are rightly concerned regarding the proposed movement of flying. The Company’s clarification on this point is crucial in particular, of immediate concern, is the impact on the overall number of CSM positions.
• There has also been considerable conjecture regarding transfers between the Divisions. The Company has been asked to confirm that an individual’s right to transfer and conditions of same under the pre-existing Divisional Transfer Arrangements are not altered by the proposed International Division EBA 8.
• In terms of the next round of EBA negotiations and certainly before surveying members, the type of flying to be operated by short haul crew is critical to EBA preparations and claims.

Members will of course be kept updated. Subject to the Company’s response, we may need to consider urgent general meetings in this regard.

Written and authorised by Jo-Ann Davidson, Divisional Secretary and John Playford, Manager Industrial Relations

18th Dec 2007, 01:56
That were the longhaul agreement to fall over they(The Domestics) would be prepared to do the dirty and negotiate for whatever they could get their hands on.
It s a continuation of the lack of integrity and morality displayed in their previous EBA.The bitterness between the two groups stems exclusively from that agreement.No matter which way you look at it that EBA is indefensible in its intent.
I will vote yes to our EBA for two reasons.
1.It guarantees my family's future for at least 5 years.
2.it will effectively deal the domestics out of further negotiations to pilfer any more regional flying.

18th Dec 2007, 03:16
I totally agree with the previous post. I have lived in both cultures and the Short Haul union has no regard for Long Haul, as was witnessed in the last 2 EBA's.
They would have no obligation to take back regional flying as it is in their interest to protect its members. Look at their last two EBA's and you can read the fine detail for yourself.

20th Dec 2007, 01:01
boys and girls,
something keeps telling me that we have given away too much to get the flying back off s/h.can you imagine a 13 hour slip in sin and then another 13 hour slip in bne and then a 24 hour slip in sin and so on.what a beauty that would be.that would be a "B" scale crew for sure.
what if we told the s/h union either join us or we sign this eba?
then i reckon as one union we could stop this divide and conquer that darth uses day in and day out.
from reading the s/h letter they all know that they will be back to doing domestics when our eba gets up.
the only way to stick it to the company is to have one union and not try and white ant each other.

call button
20th Dec 2007, 03:47

The pattern you have just described is very typical of that which shorthaul operate all the time. If anyone has any doubts, the shorthaul pattern books are available on the website. Often the trips are up to 6 days long, for example SYDHKG 12 hrs HKGBNE 12 hrs BNEHKG 12 hrs HKGPER 24hrs, then operate back of the clock PERCNSSYD in one duty.

The requirement for rest periods are applicable only in your own home base, so if you transit in another crew base, say BNE or PER you only need minimum rest. Therefore you can fly in and out of Australia several times during one trip.

20th Dec 2007, 03:55
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants

EBA 8 Vote Opens Tomorrow

You may have received information from several former FAAA officials urging you to vote against the proposed EBA 8. It is not my intention to discourage any member from exercising a right to free speech, or to discourage anyone from commenting on the EBA by expressing an opinion.

My objection to some of the material being distributed, particularly the anonymous material, is that it argues against the legal advice provided to FAAA members from among the most qualified legal counsel in the country, whilst at the same time attempting to make the opinions of the authors as being somehow “factual”.

At best some of the material is sadly misguided and at worst is deliberately misleading. It appears that some of those opposing the EBA are attempting to use the EBA as a political football and that is what is most objectionable.

What I find most unpalatable is that some distributing this information are officials that resigned as FAAA members when losing office and now attempt to take some philosophically moral high ground on Union principles. I am sure that you are smart enough to see this opportunism for what it truly is.

We have undergone many rounds of redundancy whilst cabin crew jobs have grown elsewhere in the Qantas group. The FAAA believes that we are not overpaid, but to acknowledge that our conditions and pay are the most superior in the labour market for flight attendants is a necessity. The challenges of these prevailing market conditions are the reason that we have been gradually wound down and other flight attendant areas have grown. As such it is important that we collectively adopt a pragmatic approach to these challenges. Other areas of the company have been subjected to competitive tendering for over 10 years and yet we still in this EBA have managed to preserve every core condition including hours, pay and allowances.

This EBA is an outstanding result given the gradual decline of the long haul division over the last few years, much of that decline the direct result of the failures of all of us to accept the necessary changes for the long term job security of members, and a membership not prepared to question their union.

We as flight attendants must take responsibility for our own situation. We have elected our current officials because of their experience and commitment to use qualified legal experts in negotiations and bring matters to members at meetings in a comprehensive way.

The number of member meetings held by the current FAAA team is unprecedented in our history. The level of membership consultation and explanations is without peer in the Australian Union movement. The FAAA has used two of the most qualified legal counsel in the country to assist with the complexity of the IR laws and the EBA negotiations.

The “opposition” (for want of a more appropriate word) has suggested that the legal advice is one sided. Without doubt, the advice is conservative and honest, and the FAAA Industrial staff and all officials have accepted the advice as good and sensible.

Unlike those opposing the EBA, we are not prepared to gamble with your futures and that of your families. It’s easy from a position of no responsibility to recommend a No Vote, but as someone that would like to fly for many more years, I genuinely believe that a No Vote to this EBA would be suicidal for the Long Haul Division as is it is currently constituted.

The new EBA provides growth of good quality Australian based jobs for the first time in years, protects existing crew, provides for new aircraft to be flown by current crew, and unblocks the bid system by new crew coming in underneath our existing crew, and gives current and new crew access to unprecedented promotional opportunities.

Qantas has engaged with your FAAA leadership team and has decided with this deal that they can actually grow International flying using Qantas for the first time in years. New routes, new aircraft, a transfer of traditional long haul flying back to long haul crew and a sustainable Long Haul Division for the first time in years will benefit both Qantas and Long Haul crew as a result of the flexibility provided for in this proposed landmark restructure.

You have to think clearly and then you have to make a judgement call about who you trust to make the right recommendations to you.

You either accept that your experienced FAAA leadership that you charged with securing your futures, by using the best legal advisors in the country and painstaking negotiating a total restructure of flying to provide years of ongoing growth have got it right, or that the former failed officials whose concept of fighting Qantas included a “no smile day” and the fiasco of a 12 hour stoppage at Randwick Racecourse followed by a cave in, have got it right.

It’s ultimately your decision. For me it’s a simple one, I have total faith in the dedication and competence of your Divisional Secretary Michael Mijatov. I also have great confidence in your Assistant Secretary Lee Lam who has painstakingly gone through hours of rostering concerns and drafts and redrafts of important EBA clauses. I have faith that the legal team we used is extremely competent. But more importantly, I have faith that our membership for the first time in years has an EBA that provides a future for the Long Haul Division and can recognise the changes are necessary and will provide a sustainable future.

Send a clear message with your vote in this EBA that you are happy with the quality of your representation, but more importantly send a message to the Qantas senior management that you are smarter than those opposing the EBA give you credit for and want a future for the Long Haul Division.

I am quietly confident that we as crew recognise the serious challenges we have stared down in the past, and will continue to face in the future together. Over the next several years, we will work with the new government to influence safety and regulations for Cabin Crew that the previous government totally neglected. We start the New Year with a new Minister for Transport and we are already knocking on his door with our vision for the future.

I would like to wish you all a pleasant Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Written and authorised by Steven Reed – President International Division

20 Ewan Street Mascot NSW 2020 Tel 61 2 8337 1111 Fax 61 2 8337 1122 Emergency Contact 0414 894 192 www.faaa.net <http://www.faaa.net>

20th Dec 2007, 05:13
wolfman,i understand what your saying but i don't think the s/h girls give a hoot about us.remember when the girls shafted us with the '81 dispute and flew 'for australia' and they were l/h girls so you can know what the s/h girls will do to us if they have a chance.
pegasus,great speech and back slapping and i'm with you against people who make false claims.But what about the point that wolfman brought up?
Are we giving too much away trying to get back our flying from the other union?
If we are going to do flying with 12 hour slips with only a 24 hour slip now and again just to pay the other side back?
I remember MM standing up at the rowers club giving the last 3 a blast for not standing up to the company and now all we hear is 'look guys we have to give in or well lose our jobs'
have we given in too much?
hows this for a trip.syd/sin 13 hours,sin/bne/13 hours,bne/sin 24 hours,sin/per 13 hours,per/hkg 13 hours,hkg/bne/syd.is this possible with the new eba?
a b scale is one thing but if the regional flying is as bad as what s/h do then they can keep it.

20th Dec 2007, 07:43
hows this for a trip.syd/sin 13 hours,sin/bne/13 hours,bne/sin 24 hours,sin/per 13 hours,per/hkg 13 hours,hkg/bne/syd.is this possible with the new eba?

I have know idea if that would be possible if we even had flights that would fit, but for arguments sake, a pattern like that would be close to 60 hours of duty credits and if you could do that in 6 days, on that basis alone, the seniority on that trip would go through the roof.

20th Dec 2007, 08:24
a pattern like that would be close to 60 hours of duty credits and if you could do that in 6 days, on that basis alone, the seniority on that trip would go through the roof.
yeah right but only before they do it for the first time after that they would avoid it like the plague.i make it closer to 50 hours but i reckon you have got to be smoking something there twiggs if you reckon that senior crew would go for it just because of the hours.
tbar is right and i can't see anybody with half a brain wanting them.
no horizontal crew rest and that last slip would feel like 5 minutes and you would wake up at home 2 days later and not remember how you got home but i reckon somebody has to push the company/union story.

20th Dec 2007, 09:50
Easy solution to a pattern like that. Pull the pin. The more crew that go sick on a trip like that, the more it will cost them in sick leave.
Carmen would soon get the message, or is that now Jepperson?:)

Capt Fathom
20th Dec 2007, 10:02

That would be Jeppesen !

20th Dec 2007, 10:06
twiggs is absolutely right, short high hour trips, would be very sought after.

I'm not sure what you are smoking roamingwolf.

It's amazing what crap is posted on here... same sort of rubbish that said the JFK trips would kill everyone..... now you can't get on them, because they are so sought after.

I wonder what planet some people are on. It;s quite clear people some people just don't understand that minimum rest provisions remain the same under this new proposed EBA.

I pity the FAAA trying to explain some of this stuff to a few dummies amongst us.

20th Dec 2007, 10:39
tbar is right and i can't see anybody with half a brain wanting them.

OK then so people like you with half a brain don't have to bid for them, you can leave it to the smart people who want more time at home.

20th Dec 2007, 11:05
Well said twiggs.

It's humorous and and the same time disturbing, reading some of the postings on here.

An unprecedented future has been offered to L/H crew by the proposed EBA, yet some have a form of mental gridlock, in that they simply can't understand the massive benefits from the agreement.

It would be interesting in a morbid sort of way, to see the EBA defeated, and then you would see the squealing and screaming as Qantas commenced to dismantle L/H.

At that point the likes of roamingwolf would be offering to do 300 hrs per roster etc.

I think there should be an IQ test applied before anyone can vote in an EBA, because clearly we have a distinct clueless element amongst us.

Fortunately they are a very small minority. Indications are the vote will be about 90% yes.

20th Dec 2007, 12:10
hey twiggs how come you have not got a number after your name or is that only the union guys?
to all the union guys here with a number after their name i didn't say to vote no but i don't like the idea of the regional slipping formula.
but you guys don't want any info about that spreading to crew do you?
so here's a question for the union boys ,is that trip a possibility? yes or no?
i hope you have fun doing them twiggs as the people in the office will have to do them because i reckon no crew will.

20th Dec 2007, 12:33
so here's a question for the union boys ,is that trip a possibility? yes or no?

I'll save the union boys the trouble as they are too busy to deal with this crap.
You would have to be far more specific with flight times, and departure times to determine what is possible because in our EBA, our minimum rest is based on the length of the previous sector plus any part of the sector that falls between 2000 and 0800 local. The minimum can be anywhere between 12 (absolute minimum) and 20 (maximum minimum) on that basis, so stop asking how long is a piece of string.

20th Dec 2007, 12:58
"Qantas failed to mention whether it intended to keep maintenance of its yet-to-be-delivered fleet of Boeing 787s and Airbus A380 superjumbos in Australia. Heavy maintenance on the jets would not have to be undertaken until 2011 at the earliest.
The 787s will become the backbone of Qantas's international operations within the next decade."
(Source: SMH (http://business.smh.com.au/qantas-fuels-suspicions-over-maintenance-bases/20071219-1i3s.html))

I know that newspapers cannot be trusted, but they are saying the same thing here as the union. This new EBA is giving us full access to the 787 in the same way that we currently fly on the 747. Without this EBA, we will probably lose this to shorthaul and/or QCCA.

PS: I like clause 50.8.6 in the EBA... Are you a "fight" attendant?? :eek: I hope this EBA is watertight and really has been checked over and over again...

20th Dec 2007, 13:51
EBA Clause:

26.1 Length of bid period

"Bid periods are 56 days duration, however it is the Company’s intention to move to 28-day bid periods. In the event the bid period is moved to 28-days, the values associated with bid periods stated throughout this agreement will be halved. The Association will be consulted prior to the implementation of a 28-day bid period."

Wasn't there some way to prevent this...?

21st Dec 2007, 00:31
The patterns being quoted here fail to take into account 2 facts
1.We have retained minimum rest requirements for these patterns.These are quite different from the domestics.
2.We still have a bid system.As is the case now most unfavourable trips are operated by those most junior.If this EBA is voted up the most junior will be the "B"scale crew.
There will be opportunities over the next few years to negotiate a better pay rate for the new recruits.
By voting this EBA down a lot of young Australians will be denied the opportunity to work for Qantas.Those who have newly joined the workforce have already indicated to the market what they think they are worth...Jet* wages.
Even though this may be "B"scale to current crew the wages being offered are better than Jet*.LCCs may lose a lot of their current employees to QF due to the better Tand Cs being offered.
Once you are employed full time you can begin to lobby to have these Tand Cs improved.You cant do that if you dont have a job.With this EBA the jobs stay in Australia.The alternative is making a lot of these jobs available to off shore candidates.
Fulltime jobs in Australia for young Australians or no jobs in Australia for young Australians.
Fairly simple choice really

peanut pusher
21st Dec 2007, 01:04
Anybody having trouble with the log on check ?

Keeps rejecting my birth date and details.

Looks like a rockwell collins run software package.

21st Dec 2007, 01:43
PP your profile shows you to be a S/H CSM.
WHY do you think you can vote in a L/H EBA !! doh :ugh::=

21st Dec 2007, 02:00
I had no trouble voting online, submitted my yes vote 30 minutes ago.

peanut pusher
21st Dec 2007, 02:29
I've been in L/H since 2003 wally.
Grow up tool!!!!
Do you think I would vote in another EBA out of my own division???
And a big YES it was.:D
Just got through, maybe jammed with yes voters trying to vote.

21st Dec 2007, 02:54
:ugh:Peanut check your profile please:ugh:

21st Dec 2007, 03:17
A Big Yes For Me Too.

21st Dec 2007, 03:25
twiggs said I'll save the union boys the trouble as they are too busy to deal with this crap.
Just when someone asks a question that will embarrass the union and they need a diversion along comes super twiggs.Faster than a visitor issuing a clause 11 and able to jump over bar carts with a single leap she comes to the rescue whenever the company/union needs her.She can quote regulations faster than tech crew looking for a divorce lawyer.

RW is right,did we have to give away so much apart from the ‘b’ scale.

Twiggs,as usual the eba is complex but if the new regional slipping formula is as good as the current one we have why did the company want to change it?

but as surfside has said they will be unpopular but hey it’s OK because the ‘b’ crew will be doing them.

The problem with this is that we only get our information from 2 places and that is OUR union and the company.I have always been worried when the company tells us that something THEY want is going to be good for us but when our union agree’s then warning bells go off.

Peanut pushers profile before he deletes it after he realises his mistake.
Love flying, been involved in recruiting for about 3 years now. I also do some training. Like to drop in and check on what secrets our crew gives away.

capt.cynical,Not everyone is who they say especially ones who believe that it’s destinations and not the money that are important and those who have numbers after their name.

There are people here from the office and about 6 or so from the union and you can usually tell them because they have numbers after their name.I like the bit about checking on what secrets our crew give away.

Twiggs do you work in the same office?

I agree that a yes vote is the only way to go but it’s the fine print in this that worries me as well as who are pushing it.If the company wants it was well you can bet it has some nasty surprises.

21st Dec 2007, 03:57
Twiggs,as usual the eba is complex but if the new regional slipping formula is as good as the current one we have why did the company want to change it?

No one said the new slipping formula is as good as the current one.
It is something we did have to compromise on in order to get the flying back that short-haul have been doing.
We did not give away any of our minimum rest conditions, we just gave away the one 46 hours slip in the first three and next two, for trips of 6 days or less ONLY.
It probably wouldn't have mattered to the company if we agreed to this compromise or not because they could just continue to allocate the extra 45% to short haul.

BTW there is nothing embarrassing for the union about the possibility of getting some new regional flying that is bound to have high average daily credits. I just hope I have enough seniority to get the trips.

21st Dec 2007, 04:46
It is something we did have to compromise on in order to get the flying back that short-haul have been doing.
so much for the company response but then again they also think it's destinations and not the money that is important.note the emphasis on 'WE DID HAVE TO COMPROMISE'
We did not give away any of our minimum rest conditions, we just gave away the one 46 hours slip in the first three and next two, for trips of 6 days or less ONLY.
don't you like the way the office contradicts themselves.

we did not give anything away,well except for 1,1,2 slipping pattern.Nothing big just our treasured slipping pattern that we have had for years and we have always known the company wants.

this is just like when we lost our 75% standdown and they told us a load of porkies about the new system.that will never happen,no,no,no

twiggs,if the regional trips turn out to be lemons CAN we give them back to s/h because I don't want to do them when I'm on standby's?

keep em coming because I'd like another twiggs classic post before christmas

21st Dec 2007, 04:53
twiggs, i coingratulate you on your patience in explaining issues such as the new regional slipping formula to people who just don't get it.

Why waste your breath. People like Red T Bar should attend union meetings which are still continuing or pick up the phone and ring the FAAA.

These people just don't get the fact that an agreement means both sides have to be satisfied...OTHERWISE THERE IS NO FRIGGIN AGREEMENT!

Anyway like nearly everyone i know.... i have just voted YES.

21st Dec 2007, 04:54
I just hope I have enough seniority to get the trips.

who said you didn't have a sense of humor twiggs,are you going to do a famil?:yuk:

twiggs, i coingratulate you

is that how it works?

the tech crew union is showing how it is done by taking action to enable it to represent all pilots.Imagine how strong we would be if we had one cabin crew union?

We might not have had to give so much away.

21st Dec 2007, 05:07
It's AYE for me as well.

21st Dec 2007, 05:56
was yeah but now its leaning towards NO,the more i read the fine print. the jury is still out. reason being by 2012+ you have 16 A380 which will take all the LAX/SIN/JNB/LHR and maybe other destinations(HGK/FRA). lets assume 20 crew,4current L/H crew per aircraft under QCCA condition. the rest of LH crews will fight get the left over regional trips. minimum time away+ less money, very simple mathematics. its another way to cut your income and choice of flying. then you add some other little sweeteners like paxing firm in y/c upgradable to j/c (where are the empty seats these days, definatly not in j/c). company directed doctor at their discretion. imagine fat boy slim, whacko jacko,tarantula having access to your medical records. you get my drift. :rolleyes:will see

21st Dec 2007, 06:29
Yes the no vote will have its advantages....when QCCA is not bound by EBA 8 they can employ crew on any conditions they like....they WOULD get 1st choice of any flying just like the overseas based crew.

in a perverse sort of way it would be interesting to see those former FAAA buffoons trying to get out of the shite when it all goes belly up if the EBA was defeated....the world wouldnt be big enuf for them to hide from crew that realise that they were conned by them and it really does turn out the way the FAAA has predicted...

On a personal note i would be the 1st in line for an AWA to try and preserve what i have before the shit hits the fan..AND I AM NOT JOKING

21st Dec 2007, 06:34
Direct LAX in 1981..Drama
Bid System 1988...Drama
Move from Swiss Cottage to the forum ...Drama
Huge seniority required to do LAX direct
Dont Take our bid System away.
Gee..the Forum is closer to Knightsbridge.
It will be the same with this....Crew just dont like change.
Just like every other drama it will work out despite our angst.
We are our own worst enemy...

21st Dec 2007, 07:23
I have still not been able to get an answer from the union that satisfies my most pressing question. One of the biggest issues they are pushing is for us to vote yes as we will be all out the door, unlimited foreign crew etc. with a no vote.

My understanding, and that of my brother who is a lawyer, is that our EBA is pre-reform which means that we are still covered by its terms and conditions if we vote no. Part of the EBA is the Cap on foreign crew. How can QF suddenly ignore this is we vote No? According to the legislation as it currently stands, QF cannot terminate our EBA at its expiry unless it was completed post reform (workchoices).

I am very worried about some of the information the union is giving us to vote yes. And the fact the company is so happy about it. Something in the back of my mind does not sit right.

As to the promise of 787 flying, even though it is not written in concrete, well just as the tech crew about the promise they would crew the Jetstar Intl 330 fleet when they signed their last EBA (it was promised from what they have said, but not written into their EBA).

Also, look at what has happened to allowances for tech crew as they were not formally written into their EBA. They (QF) have thrown the formula and previous agreements out the door for them.

21st Dec 2007, 07:24
twiggs,if the regional trips turn out to be lemons CAN we give them back to s/h because I don't want to do them when I'm on standby's?

That really is every person on standby's nightmare, 1/3rd of their minimum guarantee knocked over in 6 days.:rolleyes:

21st Dec 2007, 07:30

My understanding is that the cap that is in EBA7 is unenforceable under current legislation.
The cap has been agreed to be upheld by the company in a separate agreement which is conditional to us voting yes for EBA8.

21st Dec 2007, 07:35
Either your brother is a very bad lawyer or you need to go and check your hearing.

This EBA has expired on December 17, and if the EBA is defeated Qantas can get the AIRC (FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION) to terminate our EBA on application.

Rather than posting nonsense on here read the legal advice on the FAAA website that was released today or read your email from the FAAA today, if you are a union member.

This is becoming ridiculous, as stupid crew who haven't attended FAAA meetings post nonsense. It is really becoming tiresome.
God help us all, if the majority of crew are really this dumb, but of course they are not.

I have voted YES as well...... all indications are the YES vote will be massive.

21st Dec 2007, 07:47
So you are saying the last EBA is classifed as post reform under the workchoices legislation?

I personally have voted yes but have very serious concerns and in the last few weeks have become a little sceptical of our union officials (even though they are better than the previous mob).

21st Dec 2007, 08:13
Surely these people have no credibility after the mess they left after the last EBA.
Theses guys didnt even have the courage or commitment to stand for re election.
These are yesterdays losers..Broome in particular is close to finishing his flying career and Brem is more interested in an ACTU position than flying.
A no smile day ...what a lot of rot.
Dont place your faith in these clowns...They made a mess once dont let them do it again.
Warner is nothing more than a show pony who should keep his head down and stay down.
Sorry Mods I get a little passionate about hypocrites and fools

21st Dec 2007, 09:04
Southside, EBA7, which just expired 3 days ago is a pre-reform agreement.

However, you are misinformed that it can't be terminated it can. It can be terminated in the manner i described in my previous post.

Post - reform agreements can be terminated too, except there has to be a 90 day notice period.

I asked you to read the legal advice..... have you?

If you do read it , then you will have the correct information and actually understand the issue.

I apologise for my shortness with you in my earlier post, but geez, all you need to do is attend an FAAA meeting to fully comprehend the legal issues involved. Ring Mijatov, he has the FAAA emergency phone .


21st Dec 2007, 09:07
Out of interest under what provisions are the company able to terminate the conditions of your EBA until a new one is negotiated?

The LH tech crew EBA expired early this year and negotiations are still continuing. We are under no threat of our current one being terminated. We have basically been told that under Workchoices, if it were to remain, this current EBA would be the most important as the company would be able to terminate it at expiry (since it is being agreed to under workchoices legislation). Hence the push for a 5 year EBA.

21st Dec 2007, 09:15
Southside 747, your brother is totally correct we do have a pre reform agreement and it does remain in place until it is either terminated by qantas or replaced with EBA 8.

The trouble with the cap on overseas bases is that workchoices which was introduced after our eba was certified, invalidated a number of provisions because of the legislation.

One is the Cap on overseas bases. The company has had no cap since march 2006 but only the behind the scenes negotiation by the FAAA in preparation for this EBA has stopped qantas from increasing the overseas establishment.

The fact that Qantas has nnot promoted the Kiwis to CSM and CSS( which workchoices also now allows by invalidating the clause that stopped qantas) is also because of the work of the FAAA in preparation for this EBA.

I know many of these things are really complex and the FAAA does not expect crew to understand all of it. But what the FAAA expects if that its members read the newsletters where all of this has been explained ad nauseum.

Mr Jim Nolan who is without doubt one of the most respected Lawyers by the Union movement has written several pieces of legal advice in the simplest terms possible to explain that what the FAAA has negotiated (considering the law) is outstanding.

if crew want to listen to snake oil salesmen like warner brem and broome, over the most qualified lawyers in the country then we deserve what we get.

21st Dec 2007, 09:20

what the law says is that when a pre refrorm agreement reaches its expiry date (which our did on the 17th Dec) is continues until replaced by another EBA or unless the company applied to the AIRC to have it terminated.

Given that we have negotiated a replacement over 2 years Qantas would not move to terminate. if however the EBA was rejected then Qantas would be free to apply to have it terminated with all the catastrophic consequences.

the FAAA has released detailed legal advice on this subject several times from Jim Nolan one of the Barristers used by Unions in NSW.

In relation to the pilots, they would be unlikely to terminate their eBA unless they had an alternative workforce. Unlike pilots we are replaceable by SHort haul, jetstar, MAM casuals and over 870 overseas based crew , and as many as they could train in a few weeks to take over.

WE ARE NOT PILOTS.....its that simple..

I implore crew to trust the FAAA even if they dont trust QANTAS. The current officials have done everything we asked of them and unlike broome warner and Brem have used the best lawyers in australia to advise them.

21st Dec 2007, 10:01
first there is no doubt this eba will be voted up and basically it should be.

but there are things about it that more than a few of us are concerned about.if the union was not so bombastic about others it would help a lot.for the company to have the eba7 dismissed would have to be extra ordinary but the union will tell us it is no problem.

How many times have company's had an eba that has expired but with negotiations taking place terminated?

That really is every person on standby's nightmare, 1/3rd of their minimum guarantee knocked over in 6 days.

Another classic from the office but it might be a surprise to them that a lot of crew think about their health and would treat that sort of trip like the plague.Those in the office would like us to believe that opposite as usual and hence a certain persons post.

The funny part is that the same person questioned the need for cabin crew rest as well as saying that destinations are the most important thing and not the money.

Well with a few 13 or 12 hour slips in places you are really going to be sleeping so it wouldn't matter if you were in london or Los Angeles or launceston because all you are going to see is the inside of your eyelids.

But then we all know what they think like in the office.

21st Dec 2007, 11:39
RedTBar, have you taken over from lowerlobe and made it your personal mission to misquote me and try to make everyone think I work in the office?
Maybe you and lowerlobe are actually the same person?
Whether you are or not makes no difference to me, you really have no idea what the majority of cabin crew regard as important, and this is becoming increasingly clear to others on this board the more you post, so keep going.

21st Dec 2007, 21:13
Twiggsy Girl........

As usual your barking up the wrong tree.......(again),Tbar has nothing to do with me and although I read the posts I've stayed out of this is because it's your EBA.

It's funny though because I have never seen anyone else post comments and then spend so much time trying to explain herself and complain about being misquoted.If I re-posted all of Twiggsy Girls famous comments we would be here till EBA 9.

For a mere F/A you seem to know intimate details about delays and can quote rules and so on but as this is an anonymous forum you would have to expect that there are a number of people who in all probability are not who they say they are....

If you want to see examples of people with multiple personalities then you don't have to go far and just look for those with alpha numeric name's who agree with themselves and engage in enthusiastic self congratulation.

..........OOPS....I forgot that Twiggsy girl has me on her ignore list so that means of course that there won't be the usual riposte which is good.

As far as the EBA8 is concerned I agree with most here that it will be implemented.

The L/H division have no real alternative and the company knows it because the union has on a number of occasions publicly agreed with the company on the cost difference.

I don't think there is any alternative as the union will not consider any other options and the company of course are in complete agreement.

It will be interesting to watch how the company implements EBA 8.......

To all REAL crew best of luck with your EBA and I hope it all works out for the best.

To everyone though a very happy and safe Christmas

21st Dec 2007, 21:37

you are correct, and i agree with you . The key to any EBA is making sure the company is held to its committments moving forward.

The EBA is comprehensive and the side agreements according to the lawyers are as water tight as the law allows.

Without prohibited content laws (unlikely to change for some years if ever) it could have all been in the EBA itself.

I think that you lowerlobe now out of Qantas probably have a different perspective on flying given your exposure outside of what really could be described as a sheltered workshop where we currently work.

My friends that are outside of qantas cannot believe that crew still have no real concept of what the rest of the australian workforce is like.

Our world even after this eba is still very much 1974 with some minor modifications.

21st Dec 2007, 22:02

To be fair I don't think L/H Cabin Crew are the only group to want to protect their pay and conditions.I don't think they are living in the 70's anymore than some others.

Corporate Australia have protected their conditions and in fact continue to expand them with little or no opposition.

During the week AIPA have successfully enabled themselves to represent every pilot in the Qantas group.

This is exactly the opposite of what Darth wanted for Christmas.....

My concern not only for Qantas but for the rest of the workforce is that unions are fragmented and all too often work against each other.

Imagine if there was only one union who represented all QF staff?

Unfortunately,power and politics are not the sole domain of Governments and the boardrooms around the world.......

21st Dec 2007, 22:11
totally agree with you...unfortunately i dont see Rudd doing anything to help Unions per se, i think what he will do however is not TRY to undermine them like howard.

We live in a world we we ALL compete. Flight attendants now compete with each other for work, and those that want to be flight attendants are prepare to do it for less to get the job.

In a sense, what long haul crew are facing is just a microcosm of the realities of economic rationalism.

The challenge for the FAAA and any union is to get its members to understand the condequences of the choices that they make. some of the choices involve change, and not all change is pleasant , but it is inevitable.

The further challenge for crew is to be prepared to adapt to the changing environment and learn to survive. None of it palatable to some but better than the alternatives.

The LAME's are just about to find out what Qantas can do with outsourcing if they are not very careful. Those poor buggers are really skilled unlike us and yet they are facing a situation as bad if not worse than we are.

wish you all a merry xmas and hope that 2008 heralds an exciting and more stable time for us

21st Dec 2007, 22:44
In a sense, what long haul crew are facing is just a microcosm of the realities of economic rationalism.

......You might want to be careful making comments like that Pegasus.

The headhunters in the Liberal Party might want you for a leader......

However,every time I hear the phrase "economic rationalism" I think of corporate greed.While efficiencies can and should always be sought, in the end they are more and more difficult to achieve simply because there is only so much blood you can get out of a stone.

At the same time the corporate sector does not seem too interested in looking at ways to become leaner or more efficient and only serve to increase their ever expanding pay and conditions.

If you are really interested in looking to the long term survival of Australian crew then there has to be one union to stop the divisiveness that pervades the current CC workforce.

21st Dec 2007, 22:55
It amazes me how some have trouble seeing a good deal when they are offered one .Consider the industrial position we where in about 7 months ago.
Just to remind people .We had the carve up merchants APA within a whisker of taking control along with a hostile CEO emboldened with the Lib Government's anti worker legislation ,Workchoices ,AWA's etc
Its a vastly different world now.The smart ass Privaty Equity bastards have crawled back into their holes for quite sometime. JW Howard is out on the golf course . The QF L/H AWA's have been shredded.
I was at the Elections Australia Website at 9am yesterday and i couldnt click the "yes" box quick enough. Yes i do have some reservations about some aspects of the EBA that I am worried about but i can see the big picture . Now I just hope that the Viagra charged dwarf dissappears back to his pub.

22nd Dec 2007, 01:29
This is my first post ever on PPRuNe and I doubt I will write another one but can I just say this........

Be very careful guys/gals.

Remember the old saying if something seems to good to be true then it probably is. The company is offering all types of sweeteners to get you to sign on the dotted line, so what's in it for them you have to ask yourself...

What happens when they hire the B scale. Can they;

1. Put B scale FA's onto more expensive routes (LAX/SFO/JNB) and relegate A scale to SIN/BKK and perth returns for example like they are doing with the AKL base??

2. What happens when the B scale become bigger as a group than the A scale?.... The company could then say (for lack of a better example) "we will remove the scaling and the B scale get a 5% increase in wages and the A scale go onto the same pay as them...... it would definately get voted up because it is better for the majority hence all remaining A scale FA's will take a massive pay reduction.

I'm not sure of the answers to these questions and I might have already raised points that have already been raised in this thread but I personally would be very cautious of the $3K sweetener. Nothing is for nothing.

My 2c


22nd Dec 2007, 01:46
also see the big picture .as i pointed out in 5 years the majority of L/H will be in the regional flying pool, minimum sleeps,less money, less allowances. you want to go longhaul take a paycut (/A380/QCCA conditions). NO, i dont have anthing to do with the official no vote campaign. i just start reading the FINE PRINT and sat down DID THE NUMBERS on aircrafts coming(and expected crews flying them).its simple.:sad:

stubby jumbo
22nd Dec 2007, 01:50
I'm with you on this one PDNF.

This EBA has the distinct smell of a DEAD CAT.

I like most QF employees do not trust anyone in Management-particularly Senior Management. For Dixon to come out and give his approval of this agreement-STINKS.

Now the Engineers have voted overwhelmingly yesterday not to settle for the 3% ......but want 5%!!!
mmmmmmm--take a look at the projected inflation figures over the next 5 years. Its more than 3%. In real terms we'll be going backwards.

The longer this goes the more I think we are been taken for chumps.
And if I have to read another rant from SR/Guardian again I'll puke !
Let us make up our own minds-BUTT OUT.

So I and quite a few of my buddies are wavering.
I'm sure the EXCO mob are not going to have a 3% bonus locked in for the next 5 years with a one off "kick back".

Nah-its on the nose.

And please Peg et al don't come back and lecture me on being a mate of the former Union officials OR I have lost my marbles.
I'm just looking at the BIG picture and have a total disdain of Management-starting with the Fools we are subjected to who are better off packing shelves where they came from.

22nd Dec 2007, 01:56
Something that Pegasus has highlighted, the $3k sweetener from my understanding is to make up for the only 3% annual pay rise... a little extra money when inflation will no doubt be at the 6% mark over the next five years... and that's best case scenario.

22nd Dec 2007, 02:15
1. Put B scale FA's onto more expensive routes (LAX/SFO/JNB) and relegate A scale to SIN/BKK and perth returns for example like they are doing with the AKL base??

No, because the B-scale are allocated their trips out of the trips that remain after we have bid for our roster on senioity.

2. What happens when the B scale become bigger as a group than the A scale?.... The company could then say (for lack of a better example) "we will remove the scaling and the B scale get a 5% increase in wages and the A scale go onto the same pay as them...... it would definately get voted up because it is better for the majority hence all remaining A scale FA's will take a massive pay reduction.

Of course this is a possibility.
In 5 years time anything could happen, but at least we still have our current conditions to try to hold on to.
It would be a bit different if we resisted this EBA, had our conditions reduced to Jetstar, and then try to claw our way back.

22nd Dec 2007, 02:21
Knowing what I am doing for the next 5 years is a big enough sweetener for me.Then if it's time to look for back up in the F module i'll be ready.

22nd Dec 2007, 03:04
So A scale bids then whatever is left over is allocated to B scale on a fair share basis on an allocated roster or do they bid for what is left over?

22nd Dec 2007, 03:10
A scale bids then whatever is left over is allocated to B scale on a fair share basis on an allocated roster
Yes this is correct

22nd Dec 2007, 03:18
Both of you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's hilarious mrpaxing pretending "he has done the numbers".

I didn't realise you were the 5th person on the FAAA negotiating team, since you profess to know the numbers.

Clearly neither one of you knows anything.

The A380 releases 747's to do long range flying. Each year at least 1 long range destination is going to be put on the schedule starting with south america very shortly and thereafter more US destinations followed by more european destinations on 747's followed by 787-900's that will be flown by us...not the A380 group.

Rather than both of you posting nonsense on here and demonstrating your complete ignorance, let the experts deal with it, as they have in the proposed EBA.

The new EBA has produced a new era for L/H and we have 2 numbskulls criticising something they clearly don't understand and professing they are some experts in EBA matters and the networking and crewing strategies of Qantas.

mrpaxing's solution, even if he was right, which he isn't - is to reject regional flying , which he doesn't even understand, and then we would create a big surplus of crew in L/H and people would be made redundant. What a friggin genious!

As for stubbyjumbo, he believes in magic and his view is we should all go on strike to get a 5% increase per year, because he is an economist and knows what the CPI will be in a few years. Stubby should not be a trolley dolley...he should be a fortune teller.

No Qantas union has got more than 3% wage rises per year, including the pilots who 2 months ago settled the pilots short haul EBA. Yet, stubby reckons we can get it by magic, i guess.

If we were to go on strike, a ballot would be required first. That would take several weeks to organise...... QF would train an alternative workforce very quickly...remembering it takes 4 days to train and get them on line as they did in 2004....... and Geoff Dixon would say to all of us..forget coming back after your 24 or 48 hour strike....... we are locking you out for a month and then we will decide if we will talk to the FAAA and its members after that.

Wow, what a genius stubby jumbo is as well..... A FANTASTIC STRATEGY.

Kevin Rudd should step aside and let mrpaxing and stubbyjumbo run the country..... they are so talented and are the Einstein brothers.

22nd Dec 2007, 03:46
1.How many A380s have been ordered?
2.What is the delivery time line?
3.How many cycles do the 744 airframes have left.
4.How many and what type of aircraft will be retired
5.New Destinations :When and Where? .
6.Ultra Long Range Flying?
7.787s...When do they start arriving for Mainline
8.QF is now covering its cost of Capital for the first time in its history
9.The BKK Base is dying from attrition.
10.The future of the AKL and LHR bases?
Dixon is going.Jackson is gone
Where will the New CEO come from?Internal or external recruit?
Many senior QF managers are not enamoured of Jet*.
What is its future?
Rudd will likely have two terms.What effect will that have on Industrial Relations.
New recruits will swell LHCC to over 5000.
Dont treat them as the enemy.Nurture them carefully and they will become an ally.
This EBA is a reflection of changing times,a new government and QFs outstanding profit.It is an excellent platform on which LHCC can improve their Tand Cs
An interesting and bright future if managed well

22nd Dec 2007, 03:48
This is my first post ever on PPRuNe and I doubt I will write another one but can I just say this........

Be very careful guys/gals.

Remember the old saying if something seems to good to be true then it probably is.

Too good to be true? Who ever said that? I don't think you will find any current crew who say this EBA is "too good to be true". That is why there is so much debate going on here. None of us are really happy with the options we have. What would be too good to be true would be if we got an EBA which gave us a 5%pa pay rise and where we didn't have to sacrifice anything, but still got all our regional flying back and at the same time got to see growth in longhaul by the way of hundreds of new flight attendants on our wages and conditions.

That will never happen. What is being presented to us is the best I believe that we can get. That's why I have voted yes. It is certainly not ideal, but we have been backed into a corner and considering the circumstances, it's pretty good.

22nd Dec 2007, 04:07



4- 747-300'S RETIRED BY OCT 2008...... FOR 744'S SEE 3 ABOVE.





I hope that answers your questions Alpha, and it's good to see that people like you, twiggs, flugbegleiter etc are really on top of the issues.... unlike some others who are way out of their depth.

By the way , good nick AlphaLord.

call button
22nd Dec 2007, 04:51
So A scale bids then whatever is left over is allocated to B scale on a fair share basis on an allocated roster.This is in theory what happens in shorthaul. Permanent crew bid for their rosters, and then what is left after the bid draw goes to build the casuals' rosters. The only problem with this, is that the bid program has all the trips and only a limited number of crew (permanent crew) so demand days come in very senior and less desirable trips are forced on people. Then a second bid draw is run for casuals.

So therefore, those that are relatively senior (18-20 years flying) may end up with a demand day on Christmas Day, New Years Day etc, and the longer or less desirable trips may be forced on quite senior crew.

This is unfortunately what happens when some crew are bidding on seniority, and others are allocated rosters. There are 2 separate bid draws.

So if you are expecting that 'A scale' crew will get what they bid for, and 'B scale' crew will get everything that is left over, the reality may be quite different.

stubby jumbo
22nd Dec 2007, 05:19
Thanks Steven.....I mean Guardian , its good to see the fire is still in your belly. Reminds me of a tirade I witnessed once at Tradies.

Anyway, I'm undecided-BIG DEAL. Can't any one have a different opinion to you and your band of "merry men". Last time I checked we live in a Democracy ( especially now that Howard has been punted back to his 3 bedroom villa at Eastwood. :D)

I'm just very fearful of these clowns we have in Management.

As Churchill once said," the further we look back the better we see forward".

What about the debacle we endured a few EBA's ago under the banner of: PRODUCT. Greg Bee and his team lied and cheated their way through that one. We all looked like fools after the event ( I'm not blaming you BUT the previous regime in the FAAA )
Whats to say this time they don't come back at us with some other "curve ball". We are dealing with people who lied and cheated their way through the APA bid and they still come out smelling like rose petals.

Only last week at a Briefing we had one of THEM ( Mgrs-cough! ) come into our briefing to announce the new General Manager of Qantas Cabin Crew Australia-Nick...someone? I asked whats his back ground.?
Wait for it. No flying experience. 2 years at Qantas as a Cabin Crew Mgr!( I've never heard or sighted him ever )

Thats why I'm wavering.

This world is so full of spin and hype -how the hell can you work out the right path to take.
Qantas Management lost me years ago when one of the ex Line Controllers shafted me -BIG TIME. Thankfully the Gilroy Bag is now been sold in the $2.00 shop and I can sort of move on.

Yes Guardian ......I do believe in Magic, also the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Bugs Bunny and Mighty Mouse. !

One of these days Guardian you're going to work out who I am. When you do..........you'll be cacking yourself 'till next Xmas.

Seasons Greetings to all( especially Mighty Mouse fans !)

22nd Dec 2007, 05:32
Steven Reed i'm not..that's all i'll say.

Perhaps you would be cacking yourself if you knew who i was.

But anyway, i understand and respect if you are genuinely confused.

Do me a favour...pick up your phone right now and call 0414 894 192 and all of your questions and doubts will be answered.

Do it right now!!

22nd Dec 2007, 06:02
So if you are expecting that 'A scale' crew will get what they bid for, and 'B scale' crew will get everything that is left over, the reality may be quite different.

Thnaks for the info callbutton, but we have the same demand day problem in longhaul.
We are not expecting to have any change really in our rosters, because we retain our current bidding on seniority.
The benefit for juniors will be that there should be sufficient trips, with the additional flying that is coming from shorthaul and new routes, to avoid back to back JNB.

22nd Dec 2007, 06:38
ive been out all day xmas shopping and see there has been a bit of excitement in my absence.

In relation to the trust in management...i totally agree with those posters who dont trust them. No one in the FAAA would trust them either. does that mean that we just give up??

There is no one to deal with other than them, so the FAAA has no choice. What they try and do is get a tight deal , worded clearly and checked by the best lawyers in the country.

Other than that you can deal with Qantas individually if you think you can get a better deal that way.

I dont think anyone seriously considers that an option and collective bargaining is our only hope.

If the EBA is defeated the following is the scenario:-

1. The cap on overseas bases is already dead. Without the undertakings in the EBA they can recruit and promote overseas to their hearts content from the monday after the vote is declared

2. SHort Haul immediately start their negotiations and the following aircraft are no longer locked up in a long haul EBA.. 747, 767,A330, 787, A380
The company would be free to negotiate with QCCA or Short Haul to cover this work

3. QCCA would then not be a party to our eBA and would be free to negotiate with SHort Haul and Qantas for any flying they wished.

4. FAAA at best would have to survey its members to try and find out what they want from an EBA and then hope that Qantas is prepared to negotiate.

5. QF may have by that stage negotiated conditions with SHort Haul and QCCA for flying on aircraft in point 2 above and we would then be effectively snookered.

If someone would then want to put up their hand to represent LH crew from an FAAA perspective to try and deal with that situation then they would be free to do so.

22nd Dec 2007, 06:54
There are several who post here who exemplify the failures of our education system.
They cannot read and ingest information.
Cannot use a phone to obtain information and clarify what they dont understand.
They pour out the most ill conceived garbage that masquerades as intelligent(?) commentary.
They make up information from supposed informed sources.
They want to be spoonfed like the backward buffons they are
Mercifully there is only a handful of them.

22nd Dec 2007, 07:20
prunezuess i pray to god that those opposing the negotiated EBA are in the minority. if it wasnt for the impending Short Haul EBA negotiations i am sure the voting and education process could have been done over a much longer period but time was off the essence.
Short Haul crew no longer see themselves as "domestic" flight attendants and given they are paid on 140 hours for 28 days their productivity makes them very attractive as an alternative "international" workforce.
The FAAA negotiators were well aware of the challenges facing all of us and have tried their best to capture work, and preserve core conditions.
Some of the crew opposing the EBA are suggesting that the EBA doesnt give them a lifetime guarantee.....only 5 years...
I would like just one example anywhere in Australia of a "sunset" clause or "lifetime" guarantee for any workers.
Given the maximum length of an EBA is 5 years what is the alternative???

22nd Dec 2007, 07:33
Total Oblivion for Longhaul.
The domestics are still domestics.Think like domestics ,walk like domestics,talk like domestics and totally self absorbed like domestics.

call button
22nd Dec 2007, 08:30
Reading all the posts on this thread, I can't help but think that some longhaul FA's are voting yes to the EBA purely to 'get flying back from shorthaul'.

I know that tensions are high between the longhaul and shorthaul union, but I think everyone should consider the following:

When the A330 first arrived, it was purely a domestic aircraft, thus all shorthaulers were endorsed on it. We then got the 300's and they were primarily for international operations. But, ultimately it is the company (and not the unions) who decide which a/c we are endorsed on, and where they fly. All the respective unions can do, is negotiate the best conditions to preserve the ongoing employment for their members.

Longhaulers feel that shorthaul have 'stolen' their international flying, but is it any different than the 747 doing most of the Perth flying. Perth returns, are traditionally shorthaul flying. The sectors you operate originate and terminate from the domestic terminal, thus are 'domestic' flying.

But if we are rational, we all know that it is ultimately the company that control who operates what.

In a perfect world, both unions would have sat down together and put forward a united front. This would have benefited all crew.

Negotiations with the shorthaul union begin in January. Assuming the longhaul EBA is voted up, what will the company offer shorthaul? Are you all at longhaul completely certain that all your i's are dotted and t's crossed, because if not, the company will surely exploit it. The shorthaul union will negotiate whatever it takes to ensure the viability of the division, so I would hate to think that the company has a snake in the grass. But in the end, I don't trust the company and hope they don't have dirty tactics in store at the detriment of all of us.

Remember at shorthaul, we accepted MAM casuals, but there is still the chance of them being employed as permanents on our terms and conditions (some have been, particularly in Perth). In your EBA, it ultimately ends anyone ever being employed on your terms and conditions, ever.

22nd Dec 2007, 09:41
What you say is semi-accurate.

In the S/H EBA6 of 2003, S/H FAAA deliberately negotiated a so called "Regional Flying" clause with Qantas.

That was a conscious and deliberate act to grab International Flying; in addition S/H FAAA also ensured that the international flying it grabbed was done on the basis of inferior allowances and wage rates that were obviously below L/H.

All these actions were deliberate. S/H FAAA then went even further and ensured that L/H crew employed at the time of certification of the S/H EBA6 could only go over to S/H on inferior bands arrangements.

None of those actions were "forced" onto S/H FAAA, they willingly and premeditatively did that.

What L/H FAAA, has done is simply accepted the realities of the situation dealt to it by S/H FAAA and the high cost structure of L/H crew and negotiated new terms and conditions for new starters, that will now allow for massive expansion of L/H whilst at the same time protecting the existing L/H crew.

TWO further points :-

1) New starters in L/H will still be on better packages than MAM casuals, Jetstar International crew. In fact new CSS and CSM positions in L/H will be a better package than a S/H CSM.

2) L/H FAAA acted decently and with morality, by ensuring they did not "grab" domestic flying, even though they could have and they also ensured SH crew currently employed in S/H , will, if they come to L/H on a swap basis, be under the existing conditions of L/H crew , rather than come over on the new proposed conditions.

I hope that gives you and others the full, complete and accurate picture call button.

watch your6
22nd Dec 2007, 09:44
This a bad example Call Button...you guys hated these sectors and were happy to get rid of them.
Your last two EBAs are the reason LHCC dont like you or your (lack of )ethics.

22nd Dec 2007, 09:44
Very Complete And Accurate Eden:)

stubby jumbo
22nd Dec 2007, 13:38
"Very complete and accurate Guardian........"

How very cute!

The ego's on you guys are a sight to behold.:hmm:

You're going to get a 70-80% YES vote.


now............CHILL OUT

22nd Dec 2007, 21:35
"Very complete and accurate Guardian........"

stubby,at least he signed out this time before he agreed with himself:E
but it is enough to make you throw up when you read something from these guys like
'I can tell you that I see MM more than anyone here',
mate tell us something we don't know.
when I started flying the fsd was showing me around the traps I think it was singapore and probably lucky plaza.
He said 'when your haggling over something you want to buy and the shop keeper is smiling when you finally settle on a price then you are paying too much'.
Like stubby said this stinks and when something stinks like a fish it starts at the head.
If Dixon likes this then it's because it's what he wants.He's fixed us up and now the ginger beers are on his list.The guy does not know when to stop and he can't help himself.
But when the boys on the union think that they are fooling anyone here with all their different names with numbers after them and slapping each other on the back agreeing with themselves it's an even bigger worry.
ps twiggs pity you have lobey on your ignore list

22nd Dec 2007, 21:54
I received the email supposedly authored by Broome and Warner.
I have a number of issues regarding this email.
Foremost the credibility of the authors.
LHCC displayed an enormous amount of support for these two in the lead up to EBA 7.That support was squandered.I am surprised that these two even speak to each other given that the communication between them during the last EBA was at times hostile.Neither is decisive but both are egotistical.
The email itself is long on rhetoric but short on detail or viable alternatives.
The authors display their naivete by being unaware of the dangers confronting LHCC if EBA8 is voted down.In fact the email is so fanciful in its content that I have reservations about exactly who the authors are.
The group most likely disadvantaged by EBA8 are the domestics.It is possible that the authors are not Warner and Broome but officials from the domestic union.EBA8 paints the domestics into a corner .They would be delighted if it failed.
Even if it was authored by Broome and Warner their behaviour and failure during their FAAA tenure displays nothing but ego.Their failure to grasp the shortcomings of their proposed EBA7 illustrates their inablity to negotiate effectively.
I have printed the email so I could have the pleasure of filing it....under "F" for F*****g Garbage

22nd Dec 2007, 22:06
T Bar you probably have 25 + seniority and are male. You are yesterdays face of Qantas Cabin Crew.You have had it your own way your entire flying career.You have probably never had a a demand day and never been to JoBurg.Now in the twilight of your career you are still showing contempt for your junior colleagues by wanting to vote down an EBA that would finally provide some improvement for us juniors.
Wake up and smell the Roses. You are yesterdays hero and todays zero.
Move on.

22nd Dec 2007, 22:32
firepussy,like the boys on the union you are talking through your hat.You have no idea of when I started and what I have done because like everyone else I have been mucked around by the company and have had my fair share of demand days and being away from home for christmas and so on.
Show me where I said to vote NO?
This has to be voted up if for only one reason and that is s/h.
Who are you to tell me that I am about to finish work or that I've never been to SA,you are almost as arrogant as the union and I used to think that guys like Nick had an ego:yuk:

When I started I could never get things I wanted because I was junior and now you suddenly think your generation is the only one who has had to wait for anything.
it's time that you and your generation wake up and understand that the roses today smell the same as they did in the past and you are not the first in history to have to wait for something.You want everything NOW.
It was my generation that got you what you have today and you are more than happy to give it all away.
You have not got an afterthought because all you think about is NOW and you don't care about what happens down the track.
I really pity my children because of the arrogance of people like you.

22nd Dec 2007, 22:46
I think i hit a nerve.
Buy some Rogaine and retire Toupe Bar

22nd Dec 2007, 22:49
We are beginning to go down the wrong path again.
Please keep the content of your posts relevant to the EBA

22nd Dec 2007, 22:51
I think we need to take some of the rhetoric out of this debate. No one including those elected on the FAAA has a monopoly on moral high ground.

The only thing that i would say in defence of the fAAA elected officials and their passion for this EBA is that perhaps they have a better understanding of the consequences of a NO vote than some of the members.

Some on the FAAA have been around for over 30 years. People like Lew Jackson and Steve Brownlie. Neither of them would give up anything "they" fought for if there was a viable alternative.

Given that 50% of flight attendants would not take industrial action and that Qantas have short haul, overseas bases and Jetstar that can take up the slack of Industrial Action by Long Haul crew and that 50% would probably turn up to work, the FAAA have to try and negotiate rather than rely on its members all the time.

Unlike the LAME's where 87% of their members have voted for Industrial Action, our members would not do the same.

Further, there is no easy replacement engineers if the LAME's go out. To be industrially strong. Firstly you need to be united, and we are NOT. The seniority system has removed Unity.

In the 1981 dispute all crew were united as anything on a roster could go to anyone. Now crew are not united because they think that .."well with my seniority i wont have to do it anyways".

none of the real thinking crew like this situation, but we have to ackonwledge its basic truth.

The FAAA leadership have enormous responsibility to balance the needs of all crew, not just the seniors and juniors but also those with family responsibilities and those that are industrially strong and those that are industrially timid.

When you see passion at meetings from FAAA officials you must recognise that unlike some in the past, the current officials do not view the FAAA as a hobby, its their life and their passion and it and the lives of their 3000 members are taken seriously.

Do not confuse their passion and competence and dedication for arrogance always.

It's easy to critisize but to devote all of ones waking moments to not only your own future but that of 3000 of your friends and colleagues is an onerous responsibility and one that is not taken lightly.

22nd Dec 2007, 22:51
Totally agree with your comments.

The EBA that Warner, Brem, Broome and Morrison did was EBA6....the one where they caved in. The EBA that started the trouble for us.

EBA7 was done by the current guys in 2004 that got a cap placed in, access to A3330, got rid of the roster review clause etc

But the authors of the email are the above 4...i've spoken to one of them on my last trip.

All i can say is if they ever were to negotiate another EBA for us...we would be in deep crap.

stubby jumbo i think the yes vote will be even higher than what you think..... about 90-95%..... as it should be.

22nd Dec 2007, 23:04
firepussy i think you did indeed :)

RedTBar from my observations seems to be someone stuck in a time warp.

His passion is to attack the FAAA because he doesn't like them personally i suspect. It can't be their policies, because they have presented the best EBA ever and i've been around since 1984.

He also gets offended because his ideas are impractical and silly and when someone shows how silly they are he gets very PRECIOUS.

Probably time for you to leave Qantas, RedTBar because there is little that you like, except your attachment to suggesting silly ideas.

Be truthful too, it's ok to vote NO, don't pretend lol

22nd Dec 2007, 23:17
But when the boys on the union think that they are fooling anyone here with all their different names with numbers after them and slapping each other on the back agreeing with themselves it's an even bigger worry.
AlphaLord,it's not drifting off track but comments like those of firepussy show how little people learn or understand the real world.The company loves people like that and the offer of 3K and the idea of today is now and tomorro never happens is frustrating.

her generation reminds me of the sign out the front of the pub saying
"Free Beer tomorro" because to them tomorro never comes they only think about today.

What stubby and i are saying is the details that are a worry and the shortsightedness of the "ME" generation who think they are the first people on this planet to ever have to wait more than 5 minutes for something.

Pegasus/Eden/Guardian/Equity think that telling us doom and gloom all the time and just as much dis-information to sell their point is working.to tell us that they would/could not go back to the company and re negotiate is bs.

VB crew told their union to jump in the lake and get a better deal when they voted no.

Inflation next year will be closer to 4% alone let alone all the other LITTLE details like the loss of the 1,1,2 slipping patterns on regional flying.don't worry but because firepussy wants everything now and will sell her soul to get it.

Apart from all the other rubbish you are told the reason this eba has to be voted up is simple for ONE reason only and that is s/h.

22nd Dec 2007, 23:35

I think that the point that the FAAA is making is NOT that they wouldnt go back to Qantas if the EBA was defeated its that IF the EBA was defeated, the FAAA would have to go through a paintaking exercise and work out what part of the EBA flight attendants wanted renegotiated.

Then, what would happen is that the Company would also be free to suggest the parts that they also wanted renegotiated.

You dont just go back to tweek becuase that assumes that the Company would remain static on the rest of the negotiations. The whole deal, lock stock and barrel would be up for renegotiation. Say for instance that the Company said ok we will leave the slipping formula in its current form in place, but we want all crew to do 240 hours and reduce the allowances to the ATO rate 1.

The FAAA would then realise that would never be approved by the members and we would be at stalemate. the FAAA would come back to its members and say what are you prepared to do. The majority of crew would say ....well can we have the 1st deal back coz that was better.

The trouble is that we make the fatal assumption that we are bargaining in isolation. When VB rejected their EBA VB had only one flight attendant workforce.

Our situation is markedly different as SH are about to negotiate their eba in January and if we have not got a deal wrapped up then everything that we currently have is up for grabs as well.

Do we like that situation NO! do we have any other options NO.

As i indicated in a previous post, SH crew want international flying. We dont want domestic work. We have locked up Intl flying in this EBA by being flexible and making some minor changes to regional flying and some other small things, but majorly the new entrants are the major productivity improvement for the LH division.

Red and anyone else, the FAAA is available for detailed discussion on these issues either at meetings or one on one. Please dont think its about brow beating ppl, its about patiently having an adult conversation over a beer or a coffee or on a phone and stepping ppl through all the scenarios.

Please also bear in mind that the current FAAA team promised to use the best legal advice possible in these negotiations, and they have. Flight attendants have asked why dont we have professional negotiators, well the LAME's have done that for a few weeks and then abandoned it coz the professionals might have had some techniques but didnt know anything about the work or whats important.

For what its worth i think that this eba is great in our current climate, and over time the job of the FAAA will be to fine tune things and hold Qantas to its commmittments.

22nd Dec 2007, 23:39
The only rubbish is what you post RedTBar.

There is one reason above many others why people should vote YES for the proposed EBA8. EBA8 DELIVERS WORK AND JOB SECURITY TO 3000 CURRENT CREW.

There is no need to re-negotiate anything because it is a very good EBA and most people except RedTBar recognise that fact.

This is not having a go at you RedTBar, but you are just a normal (i hope) flight attendant. The only arrogance displayed on here is your own. You think that you know better than the most experienced FAAA negotiating team in our history, you think you know better than all the FAAA Industrial staff who are lawyers, you think you know better than the Industrial Barristers used by the FAAA and you think you know better than the vast bulk of crew.

So who is the arrogant one, RedTBar?????

Unfortunately, you simply refuse to understand the realities in modern Australian Industrial Relations and you particularly are so angry that you would actually prefer to take crew down a path to disaster.




23rd Dec 2007, 00:23
RedTBar, you are such a hypocrite.
So defensive when someone makes an assumption about you, but so gung ho about forcing your view about me upon everyone else.

You have nothing positive to contribute, so like lowerlobe, I no longer wish to see your comments.
You are now added to my ignore list.

23rd Dec 2007, 00:29
why didn't we employ pantyhose to negotiate the EBA?
a complete bitch but a huge set of balls.
can't wait to hear the screams over this

stubby jumbo
23rd Dec 2007, 00:48
Again Guardian you have to revert back to -type, ie Bullying Tactics.

The Rudd Govt expoilted the Liberals scare /Union bullying campaign beautifully by not responding to it-you may like to take a lesson from it. Because it turns people off to the.... real message.

Just a bit of advice.....there is no need to use CAPITALS to make the same point you have been banging on about for weeks.....we get it !

For the record I'll be voting -Yes............OK-....Happy?

What T-bar and I are doing is just questioning the reasons why this Company is intent on driving T&C's down whilst their bonus' $$$ sky rocket up.

Its a moral argument, not just at Qantas but at other large organisations and the rationale for doing it is : " competitive pressures and market forces ".

Sure, I'll be long gone before the greed and contempt for the worker will change. BUT , there is hope when you see small examples of values changing .... like the South's decision to ban Pokies as a form of revenue collection. I know you must be thinking......"What a lame example ....you are sooooo naive Stubby"

Well guess what I reckon its a start-Bravo to them.
As Paul Kelly sings: "From little things big things grow"

This is not having a go at the FAAA........in fact you guys in the bunker do a damn fine job.

However, someone in Qantas in a senior Leadership position needs to have the balls to drive a massive change agenda through this Company. Everywhere I go and speak to staff....its all the same. The Culture is toxic. People don't care about each other in this organisation and it starts from the top. Most hold management in utter contempt.

Dixon and his band of marauders have done an excellent job on the profit front ....keeping all those "grey nomads/shareholders " content..........BUT, its the people that have made this airline great.... and collectively they have had a gutful.

Mi sona perso !

23rd Dec 2007, 01:27
Stubby your remarks about corporate greed are spot on. But its the golden rule...he who has the gold makes the rules. Personally i like the way the french and russians dealt with it lol

by collective bargaining we have a btter chance than individually..the roles of unions is evolving.

Less than 18% of workers in Australia are members of Unions and yet the FAAA has over 90%. What i wonder about is the 10% that are not members????

What are THEY thinking???

23rd Dec 2007, 01:57
On Balance the EBA on offer is agreeable given the circumstances.Our position is a little precarious given the treachery the domestics are capable of.
If their EBA was a couple of years away we would have more options.
The $3K sign on bonus can be looked at as an extra 1%p.a wage increase.Overall the EBA offers a 20% wage increase over its life.3%p.a +1% sign on bonus....for an FA this equates to around an $8K wage increase over 5 years(based on $40K base salary).
Even before this EBA nobody really wanted to work on the A380.Many did however miss the 8 and 9 day ricebowls.With this EBA they will be returned to us.
While we may work a little harder on some of these patterns it will equate to more time at home with DHCs being higher for these patterns.
Best of all...we stick it to the domestics!!!!

23rd Dec 2007, 02:43
I don't trust bonus mad QF management either but they have a big win in EBA V111 which has not been talked about and its something that is not at our expense and has no sinister implications for current L/H'ers and that is the company once again get the return of centralised control of new flight attendants out of the QCC Mascot bunker.Given the dubious quality of a few of the new starters sponsored by Centrelink NZ and the disadvantage of having your workforce flying out of far flung ports this has got to be a big incentive and its importance to the control freaks in the company shouldn't be underestimated.

Crossing Guard
23rd Dec 2007, 02:52
I agree,
Despite the spin doctoring the off shore bases are a failure.Apart from BKK the bases are a joke.The quality of service emanating from LHR and AKL is way below acceptable QF standard.The other side of the coin is the behaviour of these crew members in slip ports.The pool in BKK was drained twice before hotel management said enough is enough.HKG is a port where QF is hanging on by a thread thanks to the behaviour of the LHR crew.The Crew Management in these bases is an abject failure with discipline not existant.
With crew being employed once again in Australia the standard can only improve.
BTW I voted YES.

23rd Dec 2007, 03:11
Six months I was ready to leave flying and Australia.Howard had divided Australia and the domestics had put us behond the 8 Ball.
Six months later Howard is gone from government and politics and Longhaul is back in the ballgame thanks to this EBA
Yahoo Mama! the world has returned to (almost)normal
Thank you Eminems (Mike Mijatov and Maxine McKew)

23rd Dec 2007, 03:42
Originally posted by Twiggs - I can't imagine Jet* international would waste valuable pax seats to put crew in when they have perfectly good jump seats to sit in.
This shows what someone here think of crew rest needs of cabin crew so when she says
RedTbar You are now added to my ignore list.
twiggs , I thankyou

simsalabim,Your thinking we are safe until eba111 I hope your right because the company does not think more than 2 weeks ahead normally and that is what is worrying a few of us.

When MM stood up at the rowers he made a big deal about how much the previous 3 amigos gave in to much but ever since he got the job he has given more dispensations than the UN.
pegasus he who has the gold makes the rules.
I think it's more like he who carries the biggest stick makes the rules but ever since you guys took over youve been carrying nothing more than a reed.:E

White Pointer
23rd Dec 2007, 03:42
The way people keep slagging off the other divisions creates a great chance of unity in the future. The divide just keeps growing.

To keep personally attacking Short Haul and the London Base over their percieived service levels is a a bit rich. Ask any other division and they will tell you what they think of Long Haul CC.

Debate the issues at hand, but continual reference to how bad everyone else performs compared to you lot will just degenerate this to the old mud slinging it is famous for with the eventual result of further division among the ranks.

QF management must be laughing to see how Cabin Crew seem to relish the opportunity to turn on each other at the first chance.

23rd Dec 2007, 03:48
White Pointer,it's called a diversion because when ever a question comes up about details of the eba that they don't want to talk about the union reps with multiple id's fall back on the old classic of attack.
it must be time consuming to sign in and out all the time to agree with yourself.

23rd Dec 2007, 04:54
What questions do you want answered?
What are you unsure about?
Cant make a decision?
Perhaps we can help you overcome your fear and trepidation.
Many Crew have already made a decision and voted yes.
We can step you through the process.
Its not that hard really.

23rd Dec 2007, 06:13
Less than 18% of workers in Australia are members of Unions and yet the FAAA has over 90%. What i wonder about is the 10% that are not members????
What are THEY thinking???

Free loaders. As far as I'm concerned, any flight attendant who is not a member of the FAAA should not receive the benefits of these EBA negotiations. They should be automatically transferred to "part 2" conditions or have to negotiate their own AWA. Why should I have to pay money to support these people?

At the very least, since they are not really "signing-on" to this new agreement, they should not get the "sign-on" bonus.

23rd Dec 2007, 07:19
I think it's more like he who carries the biggest stick makes the rules but ever since you guys took over youve been carrying nothing more than a reed.
tbar mate that was the funniest thing i've seen posted here for ages and the best they could come back with is toupe.how about s/h737 who gave mm and sr a big rap and then forgot to sign out and sign in with a new name before he agreed with himself.
but even better is that you don't have twuggs having a go at you anymore.I hope she puts me on her list.
boys and girls back on the subject how about after this eba and the s/h girls are back doing s/h maybe we could look at one union.
if we are one union then they won't be taking our work.let's face facts and that is the company is the winner here with 2 unions.
after the eba vote comes in we give them a call and make em an offer they can't refuse.ditch your union and join ours.

23rd Dec 2007, 07:38
the problem with a remerger with short haul is "how" we do it not why...

The why makes perfect sense. The FAAA has always had the view that Big Bang with all the flying in one pool and crew bid on senioriy would be the way to go but even with both divisions of the FAAA in favour ..Qantas is not interested.

As long as we can get proportional representation with a new union i think there is a model that could work.

The International Division has even suggested that the domestics move into the bunker in ewan street, share staff and work closely together on mutual issues but SH is not interested.

They have a team structure made up of all the different airlines and that would mean under that structure that LH would be one vote out of about 8, meaning that long haul crew would have no autonomy and would be under the control of the majority of other airline employees including sh.

When a suitable model can be found that works for everyone i am sure it will happen

23rd Dec 2007, 07:42
Where do you people come from?
Merging the unions was tried and failed miserably 10 years ago.
If anything the animousity toward the domestics has escalated exponentially
particularly in light of their recent EBAs.
Next thing you will be saying is..." bring back John Howard"
You want some 19 year old from Qantaslink negotiating on your behalf ?.
TBar has already had a go at firepussy because she is from a different generation.
I am sure the same 19 year old wouldnt want some 30 year 60 year LH FA acting on their behalf.
Talk about Venus and Mars.
Invent cold fusion its a lot easier.

Bad Hat Harry
23rd Dec 2007, 07:57
The day Old Scrotum Face(Dixon)becomes a fully functional human being there is hope for a merger

23rd Dec 2007, 08:12
They should be automatically transferred to "part 2" conditions or have to negotiate their own AWA.
Great idea mate! Write the current government and let them know you support AWA's in the Airline industry. Glad to hear your support for them :ok:

23rd Dec 2007, 08:27
get with the program Pass-A-Frozo they are going the way of the dinosaurs and 8 track car stereos.this is the ipod age just ask your kids :E

23rd Dec 2007, 08:28
the point they Flug was making is that when a union negotiates even those that are not members benefit from the resources that others provide.

i would like to see the labour govt introduce a bargaining fee payable to the union by non members when an EBA is voted up.

In the case of the current 5 yr EBA for LH crew that would work out to be about $3000 for non members.....

A very fair outcome for them

23rd Dec 2007, 08:34
i would like to see the labour govt introduce a bargaining fee payable to the union by non members when an EBA is voted up
Ahh. yes.. effective compulsory unionism.. who said Socialism was dead in Australia!
get with the program Pass-A-Frozo they are going the way of the dinosaurs and 8 track car stereos.this is the ipod age just ask your kids
Ahh yes.. 1996... that's the year prior to the introduction of the AWA. hmm.. don't remember many Ipod's then.
By the way people.. I'm no spelling or grammar master.. however it's LABOR , not LABOUR... thank god they spell the party name on the ballot or Labor would have lost in a land slide!

23rd Dec 2007, 08:38
maybe Pass-A-Frozo is one of the libs that just got chucked out and is dreaming of what might have been.Pass-A-Frozo,aircraft are pressurized now and awa's are like tiger moths, part of history.
pegasus747 thats the first idea of yours i have liked the sound of.no money no benefit.
I still reckon if we could work out the hurdles one union is the only way to go if we are looking more than 5 years down the track.i know it would be like trying to get the wife to listen but you just have to know what bait to use.offer them free subscription to dolley magazine or new woman (ask twiggs what they want) or something like subsidised lipstick:E

23rd Dec 2007, 08:39
agree with you once again PAF, there should be compulsory unionism again in Australia :)

23rd Dec 2007, 08:44
"Ahh yes.. 1996... that's the year prior to the introduction of the AWA"

Ahh... Pass-A-Frozo steady on there and don't get up too quick there son but it's nearly 2008.
try and stay on the same page as the rest of us there boy.

23rd Dec 2007, 08:45
Yes that's all well and good.

I think the company should offer non union members $3000 more per annum for not utilising executives time in an EBA.

aircraft are pressurized now and awa's are like tiger moths, part of history

Don't jump the gun yet mate.. not gone yet.. once they are though and you're pal (Rudd) get's his way, suck up the interest rate rises. They are on the way already due to business expectations. Long term projects are already factoring in the price of Labor's wonder package. Here to bring you a reduction in real wages like Hawke/Keating managed over their time!

23rd Dec 2007, 08:59
PAF i understand how you must feel as a liberal voter.

As a unionist I too am in the minority in Australia. What amazes me is how the piddlings unions and labor did over big business in this election.

could well be that australia is actually getting smarter

23rd Dec 2007, 09:16
suck up the interest rate rises. They are on the way already due to business expectations.

Good to see you back PAF,are you back from the Middle East for Christmas?

I think any economist worth his weight in foreign exchange would have to agree that any interest rate hike at the moment is the result of Howards policies.

Rudd has only just moved into the Lodge after Johnny and his travelling companion moved out so I doubt any rise could be contributed to Kev.

It must have really got to you but as others have mentioned AWA's are going the way of flight engineers,flight navigators and pilots......sorry pilots don't go until 2009,apparently microsoft is working with Boeing to design an auto pilot that orders weak black tea with lemon but doesn't want any left over first class food or will ring during a meal service.

Better luck next election..........

23rd Dec 2007, 09:29
Ahh Lowerlobe mate,
Overseas for Xmas but not in the ME.
How are you.
interest rate hike at the moment is the result of Howards policies.

Obviously not a FOREX trader are you? The market has already made it's decision on the previous policies (as has the reserve bank).

You miss a very simple yet important point:

Prices aren't effected solely by current policy. They are effected by expected results. For example the currency market has already priced in 42% of the result of a raise in interest rates.
Are the finance industry the only ones on planet earth who factor in expectations?
No. Of course not. Businesses factor in expected wage rates over long term projects. For instance if you have a building project about to begin that will take 1.5 years, you need to factor in wage costs. Those wages look like they will rise as a result of the new government (check out the Access Economics report on it). Forecast inflation anyone? Wayne see's it. He know's why too. He won't tell you he's the result.
Current price action in various industries is not a "comet's tail" showing where the economy has been. It's an indicator of what people expect.
Guess what the survey says..
Naturally you'll listen to Wayne Swan: "I've looked at the same Treasury figures that were released to the public and we are f**ked".
Apparently the blame game and buck would stop with Rudd. Already he's trying to blame the previous government for the result of business expectations of their soon to be introduced policies.

hawke eye
23rd Dec 2007, 09:53
People its time to get back to the questions and answers if there are any left.

PAF should no longer be referred to or his negative and inflamatory contributions acknowledged.

If he continues, ill request the moderator to eject / ban him.We are here discussing a serious issue and the last thing this forum needs is an agitator.

there shouldnt be too many more questions left.

Its down to voting and weighing up what we can make of it.

There are parts of this EBA im not entirely happy with but i believe I can live with them.

The situation is i am reliably informed by a former S/H flight attendant now long haul is if we vote no then s/h will make all attempts to regain the divisional flying , the A380, and the 787 and offer up a b scale if needed.

She seemed in no doubt this is what they would do. If the opportunity presented itself.

Its all good for the no campaigners to say vote no and go back to the table, but our senior manager ( AW)indicated the company would put the negotiations on hold for a while. This would allow S/h to step in and start their negotiations.

I dont think its rocket science, i know i dont like that option, and i know all that would be left on the table would be crumbs and i know i dont have any respect or confidence in a former leader who believed not smiling might scare the company:) and who now believes she has the credibilty to offer industrial advice. :eek:

im voting yes, i can live with a full bidding system, no extra hours, 5 years security, 787, unlimited part time.

former officials didnt do any better than that i dont see why they see this is so bad.

23rd Dec 2007, 10:02
If he continues, ill request the moderator to eject / ban him.We are here discussing a serious issue and the last thing this forum needs is an agitat
Sorry Hawke Eye. I was under the illusion this was PPRuNe and not a FAAA Union website. My bad, I'll check my URL.
needs is an agitat
My bad.. I wasn't aware this thread was an agree only thread. Maybe in future you can throw in "AGREE ONLY - NO NON FAAA MEMBERS ALLOWED" into the title.
If he continues
Ahh.. My bad again.. I forgot that when my opinion differs to your opinion I shouldn't post.. Sorry Mate.. my bad again
im voting yes That said I agree. However I think you lost the plot on labour product differentiation.

23rd Dec 2007, 10:38
hawke eye......

Looking in from the sidelines I agree with you because we all know what the S/H union would do if they had one iota of a chance.

They want one union and that's their union.

I honestly don't think there is any alternative.

Simon Templar
23rd Dec 2007, 10:59
Your constant need for attention borders on the psychotic

23rd Dec 2007, 21:16
Poor old Frozo I think he still can't believe that Howard was boned and is just trying to stir the pot.
With the eba It's obvious that it would be more likely that Dixon would take a pay cut than this eba not be voted up.
let's just hope that the boys have got it right and Dixon has not got any surprises up his sleeve hidden on page 300 of the eba.
it will be interesting to see if s/h have anything to say and what happens with their eba.Is there any way they could take legal action to stall our eba?
I know they are upset but they have to admit that qf bought taa and not the other way around.we should be doing what our name says and they do what is written on their terminal.

23rd Dec 2007, 21:40
Because of the restructure of the LH EBA, Qantas will be in a position to grow International flying using LH crew in a productive way now. When A380 comes online it will start to release 747 capacity which will go onto other international Destinations including South America and additional USA capacity to compete with VB international and potentially SQ and Emirates.

The challenge now for SH is to stop worrying about International Flying and to compete with VB, Jetstar and Tiger all of which are more productive and lower paid,(all negotiated by the SH union). That's not a critisism of the SH Union but a challenge they have to meet moving forward.

They will still get International Flying on 737-800's and some regional capped at 25% much of this will be out of their cns and per bases and that done on the tasman.

i doubt very much that there are any legal challenges that SH could mount about how Qantas structures its business. Essentially as a result of this EBA Qantas has decided that its LH division will do international flying and its SH division will do predominantly domestic flying.

I would have thought that SH crew as LH crew would be happy with that. However there is an element of SH crew that want Internationall Flying and i am led to believe that 300 have put their names on the list to come to LH

23rd Dec 2007, 21:49
It has been reported elsewhere that QF intends to begin retiring the 747-400's between 2011 to 2014. By 2014 10 will remain, the 6 ER's, and the later model RR's. It is possible that the ER's will still be in service by 2020, but they will be the only ones.

The Classics will be long gone in 18 months. Effectively the 380 becomes a 747 replacement given 20 are on order, and we are likely to lose 20 400's by 2014, along with the classics.

Also, the 767's will need replacing by early next decade at the latest. About the time the 787's start arriving. I just hope the 787 agreement is absolute watertight.

23rd Dec 2007, 21:58
I certainly hope that the delivery schedule for A380 maintained for the sake of the business. The current fleet plan shows that 747 will start to retire but i have been around for long enough to know that the delivery schedule of aircraft is unreliable.
Qantas is also in discussion with Boeing about the stretched 787 and that they would like to be a launch customer, They are also talking to airbus about the A350. Under the terms of agreement reached with Qantas other than A380 these aircraft would come to long haul crew.
In 2011-12 we will be preparing for the next EBA, when we see what is actually happening with aircraft retirement and fleet deployment we will then negotiate what is in the best interest of LOng Haul crew again at that stage.
the whole thing is very fluid and the principle that Long Haul crew fly international flying is what will underpin our futures. The world of aviation changes rapidly and what we face may be very different in the next EBA....its hard to know always what to do for the best. But if the workforce is productive and flexible and delivering the goods onboard as LH crew always do then i believe that job security will be maintained

Also dont forget that all the 747's are undergoing a massive refurb with Premium Economy as well ...they wouldnt be doing that if they were getting rid of them quickly

23rd Dec 2007, 23:18
Many appear to be distracted by the $3K bonus and the eagerness on both sides to have the EBA voted up.
The $3k is in effect a $600p.a pay increase that we are receiving up front.
The FAAA wants the deal done and dusted because it is an excellent outcome.Time is also important because the domestics EBA expires next month.
If this is voted down ALL regional flying will go to the domestics.LHCC will VR.ed to zero.
It would also appear that the company have come to realize that no one does LH better than LH.The FAAA has been prepared to compromise(not On Wages or the BiD system)
Remember...we were the ones who told the FAAA what was important and what we didnt want changed or compromised.They have acted on our instructions.
I have a wife and kids and intend to be around for quite awhile.If this was not a good deal MM and Co. would be getting a mouthful.
They have done a great job.
I know where I stand if this is voted up.
I am not so sure what will happen if it is voted down.
But I do know this...it wont be pretty.

24th Dec 2007, 02:28
With regards to non-union membership, I think we can just count ourselves lucky that it is so low for us.
When a union negotiates it has to do so taking into account the non-union membership.
P-A-F maybe a troll, but what he says is not untrue.
If you don't think he has something to contribute to this debate then do what I have done to lobe,T-bar and wolf and add them to your ignore list.
It's much quieter and the thread will not get closed as quickly.
(rather ironic really lobe when you reckon I'm the one that wants the thread closed:rolleyes:)

24th Dec 2007, 03:26
twuggs we are talking here about the eba sheila but I think it's funny that only you think that Pass-A-Frozo contributes anything at all.
btw do you think anyone is going to lose any sleep when you ignore them.you sound just like my 11 year old daughter inside her room sulking pretending she can't hear the rest of the family.

but back to the important stuff,
pegasus do the s/h crew who transfer to l/h have to change their union membership too?
if they are l/h crew they should join us and the other way around as well.
If they don't how about we make an offer for any s/h crew who wants to join our union even if they still fly s/h.My reason for this is the sooner they become irrelevent the sooner we don't have to worry about them.

24th Dec 2007, 03:41
The rules of the FAAA provide that if they fly in the LH division they can be members of the INternational Division.

Part of the EBA negotiations is that Qantas will allow accedited LH FAAA reps to attend any training school for new entrants and transfers from SH to offer them information about the FAAA and sign them up if they are willing to join.

the membership density in SH is not as high as LH and i am advised that many of the LH crew that went to SH have either not joined over there or resigned due to lack of service.

Of course that anecdotal but the returns to the Industrial Commission show that short haul have lost 700 members in the last 12 months

I am sure that when LH grows by over 2000 crew in the next couple of years that the FAAA will certainly sign up over 90% and hopefully more.

24th Dec 2007, 03:48
S/H crew who come to L/H have to advise the FAAA International Division if they want to be FAAA members. There is no automatic way of knowing because non members also transfer between S/H and L/H.

The same is also true in reverse ie. L/H cREW TRANSFERRING TO S/H.

But to your specific point roamingwolf, a flight attendant can ONLY be an FAAA member in L/H if they actually work in L/H and the same is true in reverse.

The FAAA Rules govern these matters and stop either "half" of the FAAA , trying to recruit crew who don't actually fly in their Qantas allocated group ie S/H or L/H.

Hope that answers your questions( even if i'm not pegasus) but according to the number after nick theory i must be FAAA and therefore i must know :)

Merry xmas to all, even to you roamingwolf :)

24th Dec 2007, 04:25
yeah thats a good point there guardian,
so to pegasus and guardian and the other union boys,
all cabin and tech crew,
twiggs and everyone else in the office,
take it easy on the sherbert and stay off the chems
Merry Xmas

Crossing Guard
24th Dec 2007, 06:18
The trolling,the insults,the yes vote,the no vote have all provided a platform for discussion.
If nothing else this has made people think about the EBA rather than just providng a rubberstamp.
It is as it should be.
This EBA is a watershed just as the agreement in 1974 was
Both have and will change the face of flying.
In this case only the passing of time will tell if the FAAA have done a good deal or have been blindsided the company negotiators.
Lets hope that it is the former.

hawke eye
26th Dec 2007, 08:58
Met a good friend the other day who has been in S/Haul for quite awhile now.
He said without any doubt all of short haul is hoping this eba does not go through.
They like the regional flying and are still concerned about their security with Jstar in the background.

If the no vote gets up we will be whistling dixie.
This friend said they would not hesitate to get what flying they can.

another friend who is in L Haul said she would vote no because shes not happy with the conditions of the b scale. This person is junior( 7 years), i explained we already fly with crew who have worse than a B scale and this would give them basic conditions with opportunity to improve those conditions. I told her she would stay junior for ever if we voted no.
The "no hopers" have offerred no solution to that dilemma, only hope that if we go back to the negotiating table the company for some unknown reason will look kindly upon us:ugh:

This person has now had a rethink.

The above are two good reasons to vote yes. Not everyone likes every vegetable put on their plate but is their enough to make a meal - definitely. how good it will taste will be for time to tell but at least we get the opportunity to eat first.

26th Dec 2007, 22:24
I know it's bleeding obvious, but if the FAAA want the new B scale F/A's to become members they will have to charge them lower fees as they will be earning proportionally less.
If the FAAA can entice them to join up, we will be more united in the future EBA 9 negotiations.
With cause 11's being handed out and the bad antagonistic attitude that QF management have towards us, you really are taking a huge risk by not being under the security and safety of a union.:ok:

26th Dec 2007, 22:38
No FAAA membership fee are not proportional!
everyone pays the same wether you are a CSM or a FA, very different wages yet the same fees!

27th Dec 2007, 00:54
I believe M.A.M crew pay less than full time short haul crew..

27th Dec 2007, 01:52
that's another problem with s/haul!

in long haul that is the way it works and its fair

browni 44
27th Dec 2007, 03:10
hawke eye

Sorry to say that you friend in shorthaul who told you "without any doubt all of shorthaul is hoping this eba does not go through" is WRONG. I am a shorthaul f/a and I hope that the eba does get the yes vote. I hate regional flying, I am a domestic f/a who would love to do domestic flying only.

27th Dec 2007, 03:53
Many of those who want to vote no are forming their opinion on incorrect information.
Once the correct information is provided their intention quickly changes.
The three blind mice offer little if any information that suggests anyone should vote no.Its basically subjective rhetorical nonsense.Very disappointing considering the importance of this EBA

27th Dec 2007, 05:22
Does anyone know what happens to MAM when this EBA is voted in the affirmative?

If Darth has set up a company to hire Cabin Crew that would appear then to make MAM a redundant exercise.

As MAM have apparently made a healthy profit and it is common knowledge that Darth would do anything that returns a profit:E then it is small wonder that this has happened.

The question is where does this leave MAM and associates?

hawke eye
27th Dec 2007, 05:55
Brownie i stand corrected, yes he did say all i guess he was paraphrasing, i guess he didnt mean all in the literal sense.
To be honest i only quoted the one person , however after talking to LHaul crew it appears many of their short haul colleagues also want us to vote no. you might be in the minority Brownie.

It seems the pressure applied by jstar and now tiger might create potential issues.
Someone suggested its not out of the realms of possibility for the company to have qf business and premium economy on some jstar aircraft.

it wouldnt be called qf but it would be the identical product.

another issue conserning short haul is the company may now want to force LSL, get rid of band payments and get rid of overtime after 8 hours to bring you more into line with the rest of us. its going to be an interesting 2008.

good luck.

call button
27th Dec 2007, 06:18
It probably leaves MAM completely screwed. With the amount of flying that will be lost by short haul, there will be a surplus of FA's based on permanent crew numbers. That won't leave a lot of flying for MAM. Many will probably apply for jobs with QCCA, but they will be losing a lot of money.

As for Maurice Alexander, is he in any way involved with QCCA?

Lowerlobe... Because QCCA is a labour hire company, separate from Qantas, there is nothing to stop FA's who have previously taken redundancy from applying. This also happened with MAM. There are FA's working for MAM who previously took redundancy from Qantas (both sh and lh). So maybe we will see you back again (working the Y class galley) in 2008!! :E

27th Dec 2007, 06:25
QCCA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas. The General Manager is Nic O'Connor and he will report directly to Alison Webster.

It is a listed Qantas Company like Flight Catering and Freight etc.

Qantas will hire all new Flight attendant employees through this Company. Existing LH crew will remain employees of QAL even if they go to A380.

Peter Gregg and Geoff Dixon are listed as Directors of the Company and it falls withint the total purvey of the Qantas Board. It has no connection with MAM or Maurice Alexander.

Qantas will offer full time employment to a significant number of MAM casual who are looking for full time employment. There will still be many MAM positions available in Short Haul given the expansion of capacity planned to tackle Tiger et al...

27th Dec 2007, 08:56
MAM Casuals now have an opportunity to become Full time employees of the Qantas Group with all the associated benefits....OR
They can work for Tiger,Virgin or Jet*....OR
They can work in the mining industry and make a fortune
They can also front up to their preferred financial institution knowing that they now have an excellent chance of getting a loan for whatever they want.
MAM has now become redundant...Alexander has hopefully invested his millions wisely.
Everyones a winner Baby.

28th Dec 2007, 03:52
Lowerlobe... Because QCCA is a labour hire company, separate from Qantas, there is nothing to stop FA's who have previously taken redundancy from applying. This also happened with MAM. There are FA's working for MAM who previously took redundancy from Qantas (both sh and lh). So maybe we will see you back again (working the Y class galley) in 2008!!

I think you might find quite a few ex-longhaulers who took the package applying for a B-scale job with QCCA.
Whether they are successful or not would certainly depend on whether they gave in to temptation on their departure and told certain people what they thought of them.;)

28th Dec 2007, 04:03
Whether they are successful or not would certainly depend on whether they gave in to temptation on their departure and told certain people what they thought of them.
twiggs did someone say something to you?

hey lobey does this mean your thinking about being a blue coat again?

28th Dec 2007, 04:45
Play the Ball...Not the man/girl.
This forum contains a great deal of useful information.
Lets not have it destroyed/removed.
If something bothers you use the ignore button.
Thats what its for

28th Dec 2007, 05:07

That's OK Tbar was being friendly as he knows what I think of the office and that hell would have to freeze over before I would apply for a 'B' scale position.

I know I had a chat before I left but I wonder if there were any really serious 'exit interviews' as they call them?

call button....Thanks for the post but I think after roughly 30 years that I would find it difficult to go back with the 'B' scale pay and conditions.The hours would be bad enough but the rostering would be the biggest hurdle.

Besides I'm not too fussed about the flying brioche and although I wouldn't mind flying on one I would not be too interested working on one.....Although maybe if they cannot find enough CSM's......:E

30th Dec 2007, 00:17
I have been over the EBA with a fine toothed comb.I have spoken to a friend who is an IR solicitor.I have tried to come up with downside scenarios.Put this all together and its not a bad deal.
Some of the regional patterns may be arduous but they are now.Less time away,higher DHCs means more time at home with the family.I have never wanted to work on the A380 so the T and Cs there dont bother me.Wages will compound 15% over the life of the EBA,salary sacrificing,sign on bonus of $3k and partime.The best part is jobs in Australia for Australians on conditions that are better than Jetstar.The domestic FAAA have just negotiated a deal for Newstarts at Jetstar that borders on being criminal in its ineptitude.I pity the domestics when their EBA expires.I wouldnt want their union negotiating on my behalf.
Any way sorry for the rave.
On balance I have voted YES

hawke eye
30th Dec 2007, 00:30
Can anyone enlighten us what the terms and conditions are that have been negotiated for new starters at jetstar by the domestic FAAA. It might give us a perspective on what they are prepared to negotiate for their eba or if we vote no.

30th Dec 2007, 00:36
You could have a look on the Domestic FAAA website or the Jetstar wannabees thread in the Cabin Crew Forum

30th Dec 2007, 00:45
Mr.Sunfish, a long time poster on PPRunE has produced the above Acronym.It usually relates to the Company in any EBA negotiation.The Company will spread FUD to further its case.In our case this has not happened
Unfortunately and sadly Mr.FUD is being used by the Three Blind Mice to further their political(power)ambitions.I wanted to strike after the Meetings at Randwick and these Three denied me that opportunity.The company gained the upper hand because of the Triumvirate's incompetence.Whatever these 3 have to say should taken with a grain of salt.They are motivated purely by self interest.Self Interest and incompetence are not a good combination...just look at the domestics...they are going to be toasted even worse than they have been.