PDA

View Full Version : I'll never fly a LCC because...


BeerBaron
26th Oct 2009, 05:55
Article from: Herald Sun

A TIGER Airways passenger has told of his and other passengers' frustration after they were stranded in Hobart for three days due to a flight cancellation.
Police guarded Tiger Airways staff while they announced to a crowd of angry passengers they would be stranded in Hobart for three days on Friday night, the Herald Sun reports.

Passenger Mike Walters said he and his wife were effectively abandoned after the cancellation.

“We were isolated in a hotel at Cambridge airport some 17km from Hobart without any local shops or supplies,” Mr Walters said.

Mr Walters said he forked out for a flight back to Melbourne yesterday on Virgin Blue because he could not wait until today, particularly as he had run out of medication.

“To add to our irritation we had to pay for alternative accommodation, transport, interstate telephone calls to family and the Tiger call centre and meals out of our own pocket with the promise of an unspecified refund in two months' time,” Mr Walters said.

“We know of other passengers on our flight who missed interstate connections to family weddings, including one best man.

“We were also unable to meet our soon to be daughter in law from Singapore, as we had planned to meet her flight at Tullamarine that same evening to welcome her and drive her home.”

Flight TT567 out of Hobart was cancelled after a flight attendant became ill, and no replacement staff were available.

A passenger who was to return to Melbourne on that flight said federal police arrived at the terminal about 9.30pm on Friday night before the announcement was delayed. (sic - should that be "before the delay was announced"?)

Passengers stranded in Hobart are due to arrive in Melbourne tonight.

Tiger Airways has been contacted for comment and will be issuing a statement shortly.

Trojan1981
26th Oct 2009, 06:00
Sometimes the Tiger does indeed bite you!

Sunstar320
26th Oct 2009, 06:51
Its the total Management Incompetence in this airline that is getting them nowhere.

They could have done the following:
-Send another aircraft out at 11pm or 1am. Their is neither a curfew at both ends. Just get them damn home. Most Tiger A320's end their day at 11pm~. Not even reschedule another flight the next morning at 6am? Its only a 3.5hr run.
-Did the FA not know they would be that damn sick?. You cant tell me that he/she had a sudden meltdown when the HBA run came.

Not even Ryanair, AirAsia, Easyjet do this to their pax. But Tiger Management just dont have the sense, its all about saving that money, yet it continues to blowout into the media and destroy them when they think they are always making the right (wrong to us) decision....

Would be good if some shareholders came along and sacked a few people right about....now:ooh:

twiggs
26th Oct 2009, 07:02
And you all believe this is exactly what happened because of what passenger Mike Walters said according to that highly reputable newspaper The Herald-Sun? :ugh:

j3pipercub
26th Oct 2009, 07:12
You Get What You Pay For!!!! Ffs!!!!!!

YPJT
26th Oct 2009, 07:14
j3pipercub,
Amen to that. :ok:

Mr. Hat
26th Oct 2009, 07:25
j3pipercub that goes double for me.

Joe public wants cake and to eat it. Joe public wants to fly around in a brand new jet at prices that wouldn't buy a railway ticket in 1986 for and expects everything to go smoothly always.

Get Real - You want ultralow fares? Suffer the consequences.

Aussie
26th Oct 2009, 08:19
Yeah well said MR Hat, Ill second that... :suspect:

Hugh Jarse
26th Oct 2009, 08:22
A passenger who was to return to Melbourne on that flight said federal police arrived at the terminal about 9.30pm on Friday night before the announcement was delayed. (sic - should that be "before the delay was announced"?)
Since when do the AFP protect airline staff from the consequences of announcements that may irritate?

I hope MY tax dollars aren't funding this :yuk:

You want service?

PAY FOR IT!!

airsupport
26th Oct 2009, 08:23
As others have said, you get what you pay for, you want full service, then fly with a full service airline. :ok:

IF you fly with a LCC then you should expect problems sometimes. :(

airsupport
26th Oct 2009, 08:50
Just saw this on one of the news sites.

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

Tiger Airways consumer communications manager Vanessa Regan said the Hobart to Melbourne flight was cancelled when a cabin crew member suddenly fell ill and required emergency medical treatment.

“Unfortunately we do not have a crew base in Hobart and so no replacement was available (and) we need a certain amount of cabin crew to fly each flight by law.”

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

After a lifetime in Airlines I will never understand this, I have seen it also at so called full service Airlines, NOT just LCCs.

While I understand there are minimum crew requirements, why on Earth (in this case) couldn't the aircraft operate the flight even with a reduced pax load, even with say only half the number of pax that were booked on it, at least they could have taken pax with connecting flights, compassionate cases, maybe people with kids etc???

NOT having a go at Tiger, as I said I have seen it before sadly at ANother Airline.

satos
26th Oct 2009, 09:46
If that was the case then why didn't they simply fly out another crew member on another carrier to Hobart so they can legally fly the aircraft with the pax back to Melbourne.
Tiger Air you should hang your head in shame.

2p!ssed2drive
26th Oct 2009, 09:46
:Ecrikey!
F.A became so suddenly ill?
surely she could have just 'toughened up princess'! :}
don't breed 'em like they used to :E

windytown
26th Oct 2009, 10:29
When I first read about this I asked myself why didn't they operate with fewer CC and PAX, or fly in another CC.

Then wondered if they had a policy not to so due to the knock on delays ie their ight tschedule couldn't handle re-sorting the PAX, luggage or the wait for a new CC.

One option I can't see Tiger doing due to their use of low cost contractors but would benefit from is having some ground crew in remote stations with min CC certification.

Does anyone know if the plane departed on time?

Cheers

zanzibar
26th Oct 2009, 10:41
Yes windytown, similar questions:

1. Did the aircraft depart with any pax at all?

2. With the one CC ill, were they thus unable to meet the requirement to have one CC per cabin zone?

3. Most likely no chance to get another cabin crew there on another carrier at that time of night.

So, considering points 2 and 3, did they fly the aircraft back empty so as to have it in position for the next day's schedule and disown the passengers?

A pretty p!ss poor effort and typical of their attitude to customers overall. The light they came across as in the recent TV series is confirmed.

I'd be very interested to know what sort of outcome results from the "promise of an unspecified refund in two months' time,"

my oleo is extended
26th Oct 2009, 11:28
I agree quite simply with the majority of the comments here, you get what you pay for !!!

If you want to pay $40.00 for a ticket and in return receive a $5.00 coffee voucher when delayed, or receive no compensation, no overnight accomodation if the service is cancelled at night with no more flights going to your destination, then fly with an LCC.

If you want to fly with a carrier who has a skeleton ground crew and a skeleton flight crew which means as soon as one staff member goes U/S, or a plane lands 15 minutes late the rest of the networks schedule will now incur gradual delays sector by sector and be unrecoverable and turn to custard, then fly an LCC.

If you want to fly with an airline who has a small amount of aircraft, nil spare planes and basically nil aircraft spares in stock so as to minimise costs, and then has a plane go U/S causing a backlog and mass delays across the entire network,then fly with an LCC. In fact, if wish to fly with an airline that has so few spares that the aircraft are belted with MEL after MEL day after day after day after day until they are grounded and completely U/S, then quickly jump aboard that LCC.

If you wish to fly with an airline that runs its Crew Rosters so thin that when there are delays at the beginning of the month they thrash the crews in the first two weeks til they run out of duty times causing crewing shortages at the end of the month or the beginning of the following month resulting in more delays and cancelled flights, then fly with an LCC.

Best of all, if you wish to fly with an airline that won't station Engineers in non-mainline ports due to cost minimalization and then have their aircraft go U/S in that port causing mass delays and schedule chaos ( although the company looks good on paper having a small workforce, even though one such delay will cost the airline the same amount of an Engineers yearly wage), then fly an LCC !

Aagh yes, the joys of a LCC. Perhaps LSS - Lousy Sh.t Service is more appropriate ?

Traffic
26th Oct 2009, 11:32
It's a probability game.

O'Leary is the King. He baits for the average bargain hunter and generally reels in more than BA or the other mainline carriers take off each punter.

Stupidity like most other fish can always be caught with minimal bait.

It always amazes me to see the stack of Bogans at Stansted spending hundreds of quid at a time in the duty free thinking they have picked O'Leary's pocket. Little do they know.

I think the same applies in OZ.

Worrals in the wilds
26th Oct 2009, 11:33
Would be good if some shareholders came along and sacked a few people right about....nowhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif
Correct me if I'm wrong (which would never happen on PPRuNe :}) but I don't think Tiger has shareholders, at least the sort who talk about it. They're not a publicly listed company and information about their operation is very thin on the ground. The sensible suggestions here about running with a reduced load or flying in crew are never put to an AGM. Caveat Emptor; let the buyer beware.
surely she could have just 'toughened up princess'! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
Easy to say and maybe correct, but as someone who toughened up while ill and nearly caused a runway incursion I get a bit wary about telling people to work while sick. This is supposed to be a civilized country and part of being civilized involves having a contingency plan for when staff are unwell. Anything else is Amateur Night.

Eastwest Loco
26th Oct 2009, 12:19
I have actually worked the galley preparing trays on an EW F27 service to Melbourne. We were under the number of pax required for 1 FA, so as I was going to MEL for meetings, I volunteered. 36 was the max- we were at 32. One girl came down with food poisoning. On time - happy campers. I enjoyed a non boring flight and actually earned my dollars too

Please don't tell me a no or little service airline couldn't operate on a legal number of F/A's to passengers if one goes U/S?

At 36 bodies per F/A over water - do the math - the thing operated empty.

That is as clever as pulling nose hair out with tweezers for fun.

Really.

I refuse to fly LCCs myself. Born a Legacy Airline brat and will be that until I die, however Jetstar and Virgin have shown pretty fair glimmers of creeping back to a decent level of late with cancellations due to unserviceability and the like. Passengers transferred on FIM's - accommodated. There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is no longer the 4:17 from Belgrave.

Keep it up dudes.

You may just drag yourself back from the bus terminus to the Airport.

Best all

EWL

snoop doggy dog
26th Oct 2009, 13:03
A minimum of 4 Cabin Crew for a 320 (I am guessing it was the A/C). I work for a full service airline and we have 5 for 320.

LCC operate with MINIMUM crew. Loose one, you only have 3.

Whether you pay top dollar or the lowest price, the company you purchased your ticket wth has a responsibility to get you there and safely :ok: Otherwise, they look after you!

These companies want to compete and slash the price, THIER problem, NOT the paying public.

sweet-fa-boy
26th Oct 2009, 13:29
Tiger already operate at minimum crew with a dispensation from CASA to operate at 4 crew (as there are 4 doors on the A320, and more than 36 pac per crew) and this is the case as well with JQ/DJ with their aircraft.

Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load. (Unlike DJ who operate E-Jets with 3 crew, and have such dispensation).

QF operate 5 crew on similar size 738, but have the dispensation as well with 4 crew (at reduced pax loads) in the case that a crew member goes sick and cannot be replaced.

Normal rule is that all doors/exits must be manned (with the exception of some o/w exits), and the only time a crew member may not occupy a door is when a crew member is incapacitated during flight, when such a suitable person (paxing crew member/ABP) shall be assigned to guard the door.

But in the end, you get what u pay for.

Eastwest Loco
26th Oct 2009, 13:34
Well Sweets - a Dash 8 100-200 has 4 exits and one flight attendant.

Give me the logic here.

EWL

Chesty Morgan
26th Oct 2009, 13:39
I can't remember the wording verbatim but in the UK it's a minimum of one cabin crew per fifty passenger seats, whether those seats are empty or not.

Is it not the same down there?

sweet-fa-boy
26th Oct 2009, 14:17
I am not sure what the CASA rules are on the Dash 100/200...

But i speak generally.. not saying its a rule.

Dash 8-100/200 have pax at the o/w exits (like pax @ o/w on 737/320), and I would assume operators have some sort of dispensation to operate with only 1 crew as they are within the pax:crew ratio...

But don't quote me, I am not familiar with any SOP's to do with that A/C

airsupport
26th Oct 2009, 19:58
Nobody yet (that I can see) has answered my question, why is it this flight (or any similar one) could not have operated safely with a reduced, even if necessary massively reduced pax load???

Tiger already operate at minimum crew with a dispensation from CASA to operate at 4 crew (as there are 4 doors on the A320, and more than 36 pac per crew) and this is the case as well with JQ/DJ with their aircraft.

Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load.

Not sure about Tiger, but I was in the Industry for decades, and many times including on a couple of International flights we had a problem with an emergency exit or its slide bottle, not having spares on hand, in each case the aircraft operated okay after declaring that emergency exit unusable, locking it off and roping off the appropriate number of seats for that exit, and of course seats nearest to that exit, then the flight operated with the reduced number of pax as per ''available'' seats.

And YES, before someone asks, Australian registered aircraft under CASA regs.

Surely it should equally be okay, in fact MUCH LESS of a drama, to have a fully usable serviceable aircraft carry less pax with less flight attendants???

Agony
26th Oct 2009, 21:35
Airsupport,

As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.

When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.

Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.

However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"

It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.

Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!

No Idea Either
26th Oct 2009, 23:13
So did the aircraft depart anyway empty on a ferry to meet schedule further down the line or did they all sit there overnight. Company perspective to cancel only one flight if they can. Also at our 'non-company' ports, some ground staff are trained as FA's to cover this exact situation. Doesn't tiger do this? Not really good management, is it.

witwiw
26th Oct 2009, 23:28
Not really good management, is it.

not really a good airline, either, from a passenger perspective!!!!

airsupport
26th Oct 2009, 23:50
Airsupport,

As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.

When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.

Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.

However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"

It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.

Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!



With respect, that defies all logic, and still does NOT answer my question.

In your scenario, it is okay to go with a full load of pax (not sure what Tigers carry) and aircraft fully serviceable and 4 flight attendants.

WHY then cannot the same aircraft go with 3 flight attendants in unusual cases like this, everything servicable but with 75% of the pax, or even 50% of the normal pax load, with appropriate announcements concerning reduced emergency exits manned????

Just common sense. :ugh:

Going Boeing
27th Oct 2009, 00:51
WHY then cannot the same aircraft go with 3 flight attendants in unusual cases like this, everything servicable but with 75% of the pax, or even 50% of the normal pax load, with appropriate announcements concerning reduced emergency exits manned????

It doesn't matter to Pax about what is said during PA's, in event of any incident pax will open any door that they can in order to get out - there would be no checking for fire, etc. The A320 in the Hudson river had only 3 F/A's and the one down the back was unable to guard both doors (which have to remain closed in a ditching due to tail down attitude) and consequently, one of the doors was opened by a desperate passenger thus allowing water to enter the rear of the aeroplane. Also, you can't lock an emergency exit "out of service" as other exits may become unusable in an emergency and thus would be required.

The Australian CAO's require a minimum of 1 F/A per 36 seats but some Oz airlines now have an exemption to a new limit of 1 F/A per 50 pax (commercial pressure from the airlines and also to bring us in-line with our neighbours on the other side of the "ditch") but you can't go below the minimum number of F/A's that CASA has stipulated because of the number of "Primary" exits. I don't know how Jetstar got an exemption to operate the A321 which has 8 doors (6 of them "Primary" exits) with only 5 F/A's. It sounds like an unsafe operation to me and I hope that they never have an incident where this is put to the test.

Kangaroo Court
27th Oct 2009, 01:03
It doesn't sound like a case isolated to Tiger though. Obviously it would better to send out an extra F/A and be done with it; maybe they've got that figured out by now.

Agony
27th Oct 2009, 01:11
Hey Airsupport,

Chill, don't shoot the messenger!

The Answer to your question is that it is the min CASA authorised crew. That's it. I dont disagree with logic but that is not the point here. Ask CASA to explain, they set the minima!

It is a primary versus secondary exit thing. Doors 2 & 3 on the 321 aren't primary, hence no requirements.

I dont make the rules!

Metro man
27th Oct 2009, 01:50
During the days of the QF/AN duopoly, occcurances such as this would undoubtedly been better handled but the fares were much higher. I remember flying Ansett BNE-SYD ticket purchased at the last minute $350, QF BNE-TVL $400.

With air travel, as most other things, you get what you pay for. Anyone expect to buy a good used car with a full service history and low kms for $3000 ? If you want all the frills and good back up if things go wrong then fly QF and pay their prices.

Want to save money and are prepared to give up the frills and accept less back up then fly Tiger.

Most of the time things go as planned and the passengers enjoy the savings, every now and then something like this happens and plans are disrupted but what do you expect for this price.

BTW Anyone fancy Sydney - Gold coast for $39 one way ? Tiger start the route in December. Buy travel insurance for a few dollars (available on their website) and smile if things go wrong.

airsupport
27th Oct 2009, 02:01
Agony,

I am NOT shooting anyone. :eek:

I think you will find CASA and other Authorities set a minimum number of Flight Attendants for X number of Passengers, a MINIMUM, and it is also usually an agreement between the Company and the Flight Attendant's Union as to the minimum they will use. :ok:

Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA. :rolleyes:

sweet-fa-boy
27th Oct 2009, 02:19
"Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA."


Yeah. Even if one pax was on board, that would still be the case. It's not just about the Pax:Crew Ratio... It is as mentioned before to do with the primary exits as well which have to be manned for take-off and landing whether there is 1 or 100 pax.

But then again, it all comes down to the CASA approved SOP's for each airline.

It may defy your logic, but that is the way it is. I do understand where ur coming from though :)

Sqwark2000
27th Oct 2009, 02:36
In NZ it is a FA:Seats ratio that are:

0-19 Seats = 0 FA
20-50 Seats = 1 FA
51-100 seats = 2 FA
101-150 = 3 FA and so on

The no. of FA required does not change dependant on Pax load carried. i.e the B733's require 3 FA even with 10 pax...

The Air Nelson D8-Q300's are designed for 56 seats but have only 50 installed so that only 1 FA is required. The jumpseat cannot be used by staff travel if the machine is full cos that would make it 51 pax and require an additional hostie.

S2K

Going Boeing
27th Oct 2009, 02:40
Doors 2 & 3 on the 321 aren't primary

Are you sure that Doors 2 are not primary exits? I've never been on one but from the outside, Doors 2 look to be the same size as Doors 1 & 4 whereas Doors 3 are slimmer.

Sue Ridgepipe
27th Oct 2009, 03:17
Well Sweets - a Dash 8 100-200 has 4 exits and one flight attendant.

Give me the logic here.

The Dash 100/200 only has one door for pax exit, thus only one f/a required. The 737-800 and the A320 (I assume) have 4 doors for pax exit, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear, thus the requirement for at least 4 f/a's in these aircraft. All over-wing exits (under wing in case of Dash 8) in 737/A320/Dash 8 are considered self-help exits and the cabin crew are not required to assist with the operation of these exits in an emergency.

ditzyboy
27th Oct 2009, 03:22
It sounds like an unsafe operation to me and I hope that they never have an incident where this is put to the test.

Door L2 on the 321 can be considered a primary exit if required by the operator. Some airlines do not need this and the overhead lockers continue past L2 and restrict the height of the door from the inside. The actual door is similar in size to Doors 1 and 4. Door R2 is the same size as Doors 3 (not full height).

It may interest you to know that the 321 can be operated with four cabin crew in some parts of the world, with one FA per pair of doors. At Jetstar the Cabin Manager operates BOTH L1 and R1, with the crew members stationed at Doors 2, Doors 3 and L4 and R4. This is similar to AN where the Cabin Manager on AN 146-200s operated L1 and R1. The Embraer jets also have pairs of 'primary' doors operated by a single crew member.

NWA 330s can operate with a flight attendant operating certain pairs of doors at minimum crew and this a widebody!

The overwing exits on the 346 (floor level and similar to Doors 2 and 3 on the 321 in size) are purely pax operated at most airlines and there is no crew member seated in the vicinity.

airsupport

Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA.

Yes :ok:

It doesn't sound like a case isolated to Tiger though. Obviously it would better to send out an extra F/A and be done with it; maybe they've got that figured out by now.

Qantas very regularly (although less so than years gone by) sends 737-400s to remote ports at minimum crew.

I once met the NJS flight attendant that solo-crewed a 146 from AYQ to ASP, after a CASA dispensation in 2000-2001. Strange that something similar could not have been sorted in this instance?

airsupport
27th Oct 2009, 03:28
During the days of the QF/AN duopoly, occcurances such as this would undoubtedly been better handled

Metro man,

Not necessarily, one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in my more than 40 years in the Industry, and also very sad for all of us that tried to find a way around it, was back in the 1980s with AN Airline.

We had a B767 transitting BNE, had a fresh crew boarding to operate BNE-SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE and one flight attendant rang in sick at the last mnute, and they had no spares available.

It was a full flight ex BNE of paying pax, many with International connections in SYD, plus many others with needs apart from the high fares they had paid.

The remaining 9 f/a's refused to man the flight.

The Captain was very good, tried to placate them, he said he only needed 8 by regulations and was quite happy to go with 9, or even 8, with a full load of pax.

They still refused to go.

What really upset all of us other employees, not to mention the pax, was we were ordered to despatch this B767 to SYD with the 3 flight crew and 9 f/a's on board, but NO pax.

The B767 ferried to SYD with 9 f/a's on board. :ugh:

ditzyboy
27th Oct 2009, 03:28
QF operate 5 crew on similar size 738, but have the dispensation as well with 4 crew (at reduced pax loads) in the case that a crew member goes sick and cannot be replaced.

Qantas can operate a fully-loaded 737-800 with four cabin crew at any time, under the CASA dispensation. However an agreement with the FAAA means this will only happen due to upline illness, unless a dispensation is sought from the union.

This changed about a year ago.

airsupport
27th Oct 2009, 04:34
So while CASA sets the MINIMUM requirement, it is the UNION that actually sets the number. :eek:

I was hoping it had improved since the disgusting incident I quoted back in the 1980s, obviously not. :(

ditzyboy
27th Oct 2009, 06:12
Calm down, airsupport.

Qantas SH cabin crew are lucky enough to have crew numbers contained in their EBA. However, the FAAA has recently agreed to losing one flight attendant from 333s (operated domestically) and dinner flights on 737s (except MEL-ADL-MEL). And that is outside the EBA. They agreed to it as it would be unreasonable not to, in these times. The loss of the extra on 737s was a bit of an issue for the FAAA as the company had not taken into account cart loadings, for instance. The FAAA and the company worked together to vary the loading of the product to allow cabin crew to work safely to get the service done.

In nine years I have never witnessed, or heard of, the FAAA not agreeing to reducing the cabin crew below the minimum set in our EBA either due to illness or company shortage. And that is from both crew bases and outports.

What will normally happen, and what has happened, is the FAAA will give dispensation and the company will agree to an abbreviated service for that sector. We experienced a crew shortage recently over a couple of months and 767 flights were going out without the extra crew required on short dinner flights. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to offer the current dinner product to 222 pax with four FAs on short sectors the FAAA approved dispensations on a per flight basis, taking into account flight times and pax loads. Obviously if there was only 50% pax the full service would still be offered.

We have the crewing levels in our EBA to protect our OHS in these situations and to better enable the operating crew to manage crew shortages and still meet customer expectations. Without the FAAA's involvement you would find crew rushing to complete the service to standard (which is unsafe) and most probably half the customers would not be offered anything and the half that had would not have their rubbish/trays collected (also unsafe).

Your concerns are unfounded. These are far different times. The FAAA insisting that crew levels be contained in our EBA (which Qantas agree to!) is purely for OHS reasons. It does not mean that numbers are not reduced due to shortages of crew (either due to illness or company mis-managment of crew resources) or financial crisis.

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 06:17
Airsupport,

what he said........

airsupport
27th Oct 2009, 06:33
So the Unions still run everything. :(

No wonder the Industry is like it is, and these terrible things happen to the poor old pax. :(

Metro man
27th Oct 2009, 07:38
Not necessarily, one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in my more than 40 years in the Industry, and also very sad for all of us that tried to find a way around it, was back in the 1980s with AN Airline.

We had a B767 transitting BNE, had a fresh crew boarding to operate BNE-SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE and one flight attendant rang in sick at the last mnute, and they had no spares available.

It was a full flight ex BNE of paying pax, many with International connections in SYD, plus many others with needs apart from the high fares they had paid.

The remaining 9 f/a's refused to man the flight.

The Captain was very good, tried to placate them, he said he only needed 8 by regulations and was quite happy to go with 9, or even 8, with a full load of pax.

They still refused to go.

What really upset all of us other employees, not to mention the pax, was we were ordered to despatch this B767 to SYD with the 3 flight crew and 9 f/a's on board, but NO pax.

The B767 ferried to SYD with 9 f/a's on board.

Is anyone surprised they ended up going broke ? I've heard similar stories, including a flight crew refusing to operate because the wrong kind of meal was supplied. Unions can have an important role to play in safe guarding their members interests but that's having the piss. AN flight attendents were grossly over paid in the first place, to refuse to operate a flight which was still legal just because someone went sick shows the mentality of some of these people. I wonder if it carried over into their new jobs, and if it did, how long they lasted.

Keg
27th Oct 2009, 08:36
In nine years I have never witnessed, or heard of, the FAAA not agreeing to reducing the cabin crew below the minimum set in our EBA either due to illness or company shortage. And that is from both crew bases and outports.

A 744 operated empty SYD-LAX with 13 F/As on board due to shortage of crew over Christmas/ NY a few years back. FAAA did not grant a dispensation even with the reduced passenger load offered by the company. The rumour mill suggested the crew themselves were happy to go but the FAAA was trying to make a point with QF at the time due to chronic crew shortages and massive disruption of crew rosters. Multiple examples at the time of crew arriving home off 8-10 day trips and being turned around in SYD to operate somewhere else for another few days.

Not saying the FAAA did the right or wrong thing, just saying that it's not unheard of for them to draw a line in the sand over what can be very real issues to those affected. It's often a lot more complex than not getting the right crew meal. :rolleyes:

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 08:47
Keg,

others will chime in shortly who know more of this incident than I but AFAIK the FAAA decided not to give dispensation for this aircraft as a culture of short crewing had occurred out of Sydney.

Evidently it costs money to train and employ FAs and the company weren't doing either.

Strange that the problem of short crewing aircraft ex Sydney just went away.

Obie
27th Oct 2009, 10:01
Ah yes!...F/As...the weak link and the ruination of many companies and detested by ALL other airline employees!!

What a joke they are and they're around for what?...about 5 minutes a time compared to other employees!

Spent 40 yrs working with them and was embarrassed to be associated with most of them!

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 10:26
Keg,

from memory the incident wasn't around Christmas.

Keg
27th Oct 2009, 10:32
There has been more than one occasion when this has occurred.

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 10:42
Granted I don't know much about the flying boat era.

Pegasus747
27th Oct 2009, 10:53
it wasnt a refusal to grant a dispensation as such it was the utter frustration of continual operating short and the FAAA "directed" the crew not to operate the flight.

The AIRC deemed it to be illegal industrial action and ordered the FAAA to grant dispensations in a reasonable fashion and the AIRC orders were attached as a planning and scheduling agreement to the EBA.

The substance of the agreement is that dispensations cannot reasonably be withheld.

Qantas cancelled the payroll deductions of union fees for FAAA members and the FAAA had a major financial crisis and many members did not enter other arrangements and subsequently are still not members as it became a convenience excuse rather than resigning.

Qantas lodged a damages claim against the FAAA and its elected officials for the cost of the disruption and to this day it is still held in abeyance.

ozangel
27th Oct 2009, 11:32
This might just get nasty.

Obie, im sorry you feel that way. But fortunately your sentiments are not shared amongst most of your colleagues.

Please take a moment to remember that your flight attendants are there to deal with the passengers so that you don't have to, be it during an emergency, or when a dementia patient drops a steamer in the forward galley (yes, it happened to me, no doubt its happened to others!).

To be honest Obie, i'd love to see you give it a go - they recruit people of all ages now you know - but somehow I just don't think the 'John Wayne' approach will cut it with the barrage of disability, equality, community and media organisations salivating over an opportunity to get some publicity!

And Metro - I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly. Anyone who thinks that Flight Attendants killed AN is kidding themselves - the same could be said for just about every other department if that is the case! If there is anyone on this planet who should understand just how airline management use 'precedent' when re-negotiating an EBA, it should be pilots.

I have worked for too many airlines spouting the 'good-will' bollocks to know that it is never reciprocated, and only ever used to screw you over next time you come up for re-negotiations.

As for tiger - its nice to know that what little is left of a 'safety culture' in australian aviation prevailed and the flight didn't go with less than 4. As for the customer service recovery - anyone who cant remember a time when they have worked for an aviation company when the screw up has been equally as bad is either very fresh or a heavy drinker!

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 11:35
I wouldn't worry Obie. A [email protected] is a [email protected] who is best just ignored.:ok:

Keg
27th Oct 2009, 12:13
Granted I don't know much about the flying boat era.

Lol. I'd pay that one if I was a lot older than the 38 I actually am. :rolleyes:

Pegasus747
27th Oct 2009, 12:15
it's not the years :) it's the mileage :)

rmcdonal
27th Oct 2009, 12:46
I've heard similar stories, including a flight crew refusing to operate because the wrong kind of meal was supplied.
When the incorrect meal is provided for EVERY meal for several weeks against the EBA, and the duty is 10hrs through 2 meal periods with no breaks I can see why.
And that was not a far out example, it actually happens. :ugh::suspect:

8888
27th Oct 2009, 12:48
Ahhhh... Ozangel, you might be a little surprised at just how many agree with Obie when pushed. Hardly the downfall of AN, I agree, but the culture he raises... Well, there is credence there I'm afraid. When their level of self belief reached such heights that urges were made to have the CM be the 'No. 2' decision maker after the Captain on a diversion choice... Well that was when heckles were raised by many, to say the least. Whilst I met and remain friends with a number of delightful ex AN F/A's I have a sour recollection of them as a 'breed' and I doubt whether it's exclusive to the AN crowd either. The debate on union merit will rage long after we are gone but some flight attendants have done 'the cause' a great disservice over the years.

Oh, and by the way you aren't there so that the pilots don't have to deal with the awkward pax. You have a job to do and the pilots have a job to do. Apart from having the pax get off at their choice of destination with a pleasant demeanour there is no correlation between the two jobs whatsoever. The arrogance to assume otherwise is where the 'attitude', you so disapprove of, inevitably begins.

Metro man
27th Oct 2009, 12:50
"I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly."

I'm sure all the passengers who missed their connecting flights, weddings, funerals, business meetings and appointments were grateful as well.:rolleyes:

If the aircraft was certified to operate with eight f/a and nine were present, ie one more than the minimum legally required why couldn't they have gone ?

AN cabin crew enjoyed good pay and conditions surely it's not unreasonable to give a little in return in exceptional circumstances.

I'm not suggesting the flight attendents killed AN by themselves, many departments deserve recognition for the part they played. I already mentioned the pilots, the baggage handlers weren't exactly under paid and worked to death, the aircraft cleaners earned more than I did as a turbo prop captain. The management deserve their own book. QF wouldn't even pay $1 for AN when it was offered to them such was the state of things.

I remember the tears on the news when it all fell apart, people who wouldn't give a bit to get the job done despite well above average pay were now unemployed. Instead of being militant about petty details, they were out looking for work and what a surprise it must have been. I bet there weren't that many employers as good as AN around.

Pay me well, give me good conditions and I can be very cooperative. Work on an RDO sure, last minute change to the roster that I don't have to accept not a problem "Can you help us out with ........?" I'll do my best.

Under pay me and give me poor conditions, well you need to speak to a couple of my ex employers about that.:E

ditch handle
27th Oct 2009, 12:56
8888,

Ah yes. More FA bashing trolls crawling out from beneath their rocks. :rolleyes:

Flight Attendants- By and large the only differentiating factor between airlines.

No ?

ozangel
27th Oct 2009, 13:08
Fair points metro man.

However - Virgin Blue cabin crew are paid above the average cabin crew wage these days - would you support them in taking a similar stance in an effort to improve conditions (not just for themselves, but -) for everyone?

Exceptional circumstances sure - i've happily gone in at 2am on annual leave to do a 21 (yes - twenty one!) hour 4 sector duty to pick up a soldier who was killed - and I did this on my birthday, but I can not be held responsible for a companies lack of oversight when it comes to the travel plans of 200 passengers, funeral or otherwise. God knows, i've missed a few funerals, weddings, birthdays and births at short notice...

And, sure, the aircraft may be certified for less - I didn't sign my employment agreement with boeing (or airbus or embraer) - I signed it with an airline that also put pen to paper and agreed!

I was one of those Ansett passengers, and also one of those Ansett staff members. I lost my job, and missed an important occasion. I too remember the tears - but no regrets, just respect!

8888 - I didn't say everyone - I don't doubt there are others like you - however you are certainly not in the majority (beyond an anonymous online forum - ie in the real world). I guess my point is, the planes do not fly without pilots, and for now, they certainly don't fly without flight attendants - like it or not... Flight Attendants, like pilots are a requirement - and like pilots, we are just trying to make a living... I know first hand at Qantas (short haul) and Virgin Blue, there is generally a healthy respect for the pilots, which for the most part is reciprocated.

No disrespect to Obie beyond that he has shown flight attendants...

That is as far as I will be drawn into an iron curtain debate... Safe flying...

Pequena_Inquieta
27th Oct 2009, 13:28
Flight TT567 out of Hobart was cancelled after a flight attendant became ill, and no replacement staff were available.

Oh God... flight canceled because of a flight attendant?
Are they running out of cabin crew?
They can hire me!!! :}

“Unfortunately we do not have a crew base in Hobart and so no replacement was available (and) we need a certain amount of cabin crew to fly each flight by law.”

Oh... too bad for me then... :(

Metro man
27th Oct 2009, 13:30
"Flight Attendants- By and large the only differentiating factor between airlines."

:hmm: Not quite.

Type of aircraft operated
In flight entertainment
Quality of meals
Convenient schedule
Safety record
Frequent flyer program
Lounges
Price
Reliability
Reputation
Customer service on the ground
Seat pitch

You are tending to rather over estimate your importance just a little aren't you ?;)

8888
27th Oct 2009, 15:02
Ozangel, I admire your calmness and agree with some of what you say.

Ditch, not FA bashing generally. Making an observation from almost 15 years in the airline game and offering a counter argument to a previous post. The respect that I showed to those whom I directed my earlier comments towards was, on numerous occasions, most certainly not reciprocated and some of the stories I could tell would, perhaps, make even you raise an eyebrow. Whilst outstanding F/A's might be an airline marketers dream I would suggest that they are misleading as the 'only' differentiation factor. Some of the airlines in my neck of the woods are a case in point if you include safety and standards in there somewhere.

AnQrKa
27th Oct 2009, 17:38
Metro Man,

“AN flight attendents were grossly over paid in the first place”

And yet at the time QF had some cabin crew earning considerably more.

“I'm not suggesting the flight attendents killed AN by themselves, many departments deserve recognition for the part they played. I already mentioned the pilots, the baggage handlers weren't exactly under paid and worked to death, the aircraft cleaners earned more than I did as a turbo prop captain.”

Yep, once again, compared to which airline. AN staff salaries were NO different to QF’s and in some cases (such as longhaul pilots) lower.

Try again my friend, this time use some real information when debating.

airsupport
27th Oct 2009, 20:11
And Metro - I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly.

I just cannot believe you mean that. :(

I worked with so many different people in the Airline Industry all over the World for more than 40 years, and as I said earlier this was one of the most disgusting and upsetting things I have ever seen. :(

No other AN Employees there that day could believe it, the Captain didn't want to go but had to, even the Engineers and Porters dispatching the 767 had to be ordered to see it out as it was, EVERY Employee was concerned for the pax, and the Company, except the flight attendants. :(

Jet_A_Knight
27th Oct 2009, 22:56
"That's not how we did it at Ansett":E

airsupport
28th Oct 2009, 00:45
"That's not how we did it at Ansett"

I don't know who you are, or when you were with Ansett IF at all, but that is what happened back in the 1980s. :(

Incidentally several people talking about EBAs, I am not positive but fairly sure this disgusting incident was before there were EBAs.

Also I am NOT having a go at Flight Attendants in general, or "Hosties" as they were known for most of my working life, I have worked with many really great Flight Attendants all over Australia, and also in many other parts of the World for more than 40 years. :ok:

It was just these 9 that sad day. :mad:

Metro man
28th Oct 2009, 01:04
Yep, once again, compared to which airline.

Compared to other jobs in general. Being a flight attendent isn't highly skilled or requires years of training and certainly didn't justify the pay scales of years ago. Airlines world wide are finding they can't justify the previous extravagent packages given to cabin crew.

There is a BBC program available on YouTube about the downfall of British Leyland. Worth watching, and one done in a similar manner on Ansetts downfall would be particularly interesting.

Who would like to be admitted to hospital and have the nurses behaving like unionised cabin crew ? :E

"I'm not dealing with that patient, he's bleeding everywhere. I'm off shift in ten minutes some one else can deal with him. It's the juniors job to fetch the doctor, he'll have to wait untill she gets back. I don't care it's not in my job description. We're supposed to have four nurses for this and I don't care if three can safely do the job, he'll have to have his operation another day. I'm not changing my meal break just because someones been run over. Why shouldn't a senior nurse be paid more than a junior doctor ?"

Worrals in the wilds
28th Oct 2009, 01:40
Senior nurses are paid more than junior doctors, by about twenty grand. It's one of the reasons there's such a doctor shortage in Australia.

Unions don't have the teeth (or the numbers) they used to have fifteen years ago. Even the TWU's pretty wussy these days. Could anyone see this type of thing happening today (genuine question, I don't work for an airline)?

Second genuine question: why were airline wages so relatively high in the seventies? Was there a shortage of available candidates?

dodgybrothers
28th Oct 2009, 03:25
most of the posts here centre around the fact the the F/As could have continued with reduced crew and that was the norm if someone went sick enroute and had to be offloaded. But now LCCs have taken that option away by crewing the aircraft with minimum compliment. So if one has to be offloaded for whatever reason, then the show is all over.

I for one don't believe that it is a flighty's problem if he/she is crook and can't go on, but to blame them for the flight cancellation is abhorrent. The brain surgeons that make decisions to go with absolute min crew do so with the full knowledge of risk analysis saying that at some stage they may have to cancel a flight due to crew shortage and are happy to run with that risk.

So no blame can be apportioned to the flight attendants.

The one star line only last week diverted a 330 to darwin so a 321 could operate due to lack of crew and the same said line ferried an aircraft back from dps empty due to crew illness, so if thats the risk the run then they must cop the brunt of the blame.

As has also been mentioned many times before, as a passenger if you buy a ticket on one of these LCCs, then you also run the risk of being stranded especially now they are operating internationally. So for the sake of a few extra bucks I think I'd go with the full service, if you have the option of course!

indamiddle
28th Oct 2009, 05:30
looks like the rules have changed re min crew 747.
currently 12 crew full a/c.
reduced pax(none upper deck) is 11.
i don't know how long these rules have been about.
be careful booking jetstar over the xmas/new year period. they are already canceling flights on an ad hoc basis re crew shortages. the last week of each roster is when this is happening as crew reach max hours. be aware with xmas in this roster things will definitely not be any better this month!

AnQrKa
30th Oct 2009, 04:17
“Compared to other jobs in general.”

That’s great, but you should consider the comparative advantage from one airline to the next wrt labor costs. There was none. QF had higher labor costs and yet you imply that labor costs sent AN to the wall.

lowerlobe
30th Oct 2009, 05:11
QF had higher labor costs and yet you imply that labor costs sent AN to the wall.
I'm not disagreeing with you but can you prove that....?

Metro man
31st Oct 2009, 02:40
High pay and good conditions are something most employees aspire to. If the business is making money and is able to reward its workers accordingly then why shouldn't they enjoy the fruits of their labour ?

Microsoft and Google are profitable and able to attract and reward the best people. Because they are able to attract the best people they are profitable and so it continues.

Ansett weren't profitable for many reasons so how were they supposed to sustain $70 000 flight attendents and $50 000 aircraft cleaners back in the 1990s ? The baggage loaders weren't exactly industrious and hard working either. Compared to other loaders I had experience of, the Ansett ones were paid twice as much, took twice as long and used twice the number.

B767s with flight engineers, cabin crew refusing to operate with one less even though they were still in excess of the legal requirement, pilots refusing a flight because the wrong meal was provided, incompetent management.

Then when the inevitable happens and things fall apart everyones in tears expecting the government to step in and keep it all going. Plus travellers got slugged with the Ansett ticket tax so the employees could get their entitlements.

The main difference was QANTAS in the past ran its business in such a way that it was profitable and could sustain a high cost unionised workplace. I have no doubt that QF pay and conditions were similar to or exceeded Ansetts, however they made money.

Different story today for QF, much stiffer competition and a global financial crisis. Back in the 1990s it was just AN with a similar cost structure, now it's Virgin and Tiger with their much leaner operations and efficient work practices.

If QF can continue with its pay and work practices and still remain in the black then fine. If they can't they must either change or go the way of AN.

Kangaroo Court
31st Oct 2009, 03:09
And folks, that one wins the prize for best post this week!

Z Force
31st Oct 2009, 03:18
$70,000 for a flight attendant? Now that is an extremely overinflated figure. I know, I was there. Where did you get that figure from Metro?

breakfastburrito
31st Oct 2009, 03:34
Different story today for QF, much stiffer competition and a global financial crisis. Back in the 1990s it was just AN with a similar cost structure, now it's Virgin and Tiger with their much leaner operations and efficient work practices.Metro Man, neither Tiger nor Virgin are making money, they're are buying market share. I doesn't matter how lean or efficient you are, if you consistently sell below your costs, you will eventually run out of cash.

lowerlobe
31st Oct 2009, 04:11
I have no doubt that QF pay and conditions were similar to or exceeded Ansetts, however they made money.
Another guess....show me the proof metro man...
so how were they supposed to sustain $70 000 flight attendents and $50 000 aircraft cleaners back in the 1990s ?
This is the part I find funny...I would like Metro man to show the proof that those groups were getting that sort of money...

The second and usual part of arguments that appear with monotonous regularity from people like Metro man is that they begrudge anyone else being paid the level they are on but when it comes to justifying their own pay packets they tell everyone that they earn every cent they get.......

Metro man
31st Oct 2009, 04:31
Senior F/A, Cabin Manager with allowances wouldn't have been too far shy of that figure towards the end of the decade.

Unfortunately we are in a race to the bottom regarding airline staff pay and conditions. I would love to have been an airline pilot during the 1970s, then it was a top job. Paid training, mega salaries, easy life with 5* hotel night stops, reasonable monthly hours, good benefits and a nice pension.

Today the pay is reasonably good but the training is at your own expense and the benefits and pension fast disappearing. Flight time limitations are now targets. In another 10-20 years what used to be standard airline conditions will the exception. Just ask the Cathay pilots today to compare their terms to the old "A" scalers.

I need my job in order to pay the morgage, buy food and give me a reasonable lifestyle. In return for this I expect to work and be paid in accordance with my skills and experience. If you want to sit in my seat it's likely to cost you $100 000 IF you are capable of doing it.

My job only lasts as long as my employer makes money. My employer doesn't make money when forced to pay certain people more than they are worth and suffer the cost of their unrealistic work practices, all backed up by the union. Especially when the competition don't have this problem.

BTW Not many airlines are making money at the moment, Air India and Japan Airlines are both looking for bail outs. Those left standing will be the ones with sufficient reserves built up to ride out his down turn (Ryan Air) or government backing (QATAR)

lowerlobe
31st Oct 2009, 04:40
Senior F/A, Cabin Manager with allowances wouldn't have been too far shy of that figure towards the end of the decade.
Metro Man..If you are going to point the finger at other groups then have the honesty to tell us how which area of the world you fly in and how much you are paid and if you earn it....
My employer doesn't make money when forced to pay certain people more than they are worth and suffer the cost of their unrealistic work practices, all backed up by the union
In other words Metro man does not have the luxury of being able to be in a union....and that he is jealous of what other people earn....QED
If you want to sit in my seat it's likely to cost you $100 000 IF you are capable of doing it.
In my mind that's the best part....'IF you are capable of doing what I do..."..Metro man is part of the elite obviously...

Metro Man...It would appear as though you do not have any idea of what it costs to buy a business today ...$100,000 would not buy you a paper run these days and there is no guarantee of any income later so why should you be any different.

Metro man
31st Oct 2009, 06:30
I earn about AU$120 000 depending on the exchange rate, most of which is take home because of low income tax. This is the type of money airlines here have to pay to attract suitable people. There is no union agreement it's simply what we are worth at the moment. If they don't pay it, pilots will leave and the aircraft will sit on the ground. At the moment it's an employers market so we're not in a position to ask for more, however once things pick up again pay will need to go up or there will be a mass exodus.

My job is more secure because the unions are in no position to hold the company to ransom with unrealistic demands from people who could easily be replaced.

I could learn very quickly how to load a bag into the hold, or pass a drink to a passenger. How long for a loader or flight attendent to pilot an airliner ?

Airline pilots are an elite and our conditions should reflect this. We should be paid considerably more than flight attendents and loaders.

That's the trouble with Australia not having a proper class system, everyone thinks they're equal where as over here skilled people are respected and rewarded.

lowerlobe
31st Oct 2009, 08:41
That's the trouble with Australia not having a proper class system, everyone thinks they're equal where as over here skilled people are respected and rewarded.
So you couldn't get a job in Australia so you had to go overseas....and I bet you're really upset you were not born 150 years ago......You would have fitted in very well in the UK ....ROFL....proper class system....you should be a stand up comedian...
Airline pilots are an elite and our conditions should reflect this.
OK Hotdog.....or should I say Roger Ramjet....

The movie 'The Right Stuff' would be like viagra for you....
We should be paid considerably more than flight attendents and loaders.
Errr You are but it never ceases to amaze me how people like you use other groups in society for leverage...you can't do it on your own...
I could learn very quickly how to load a bag into the hold, or pass a drink to a passenger
If you think serving a drink is the only qualification for cabin crew then it's obvious that you wouldn't be able to do that job....no surprise there...
My job is more secure because the unions are in no position to hold the company to ransom with unrealistic demands from people who could easily be replaced.
In other words unionism is not allowed where you work.....
There is no union agreement it's simply what we are worth at the moment
A self assessment of someone's worth or ability can be very inaccurate and in your case definitely so....

airsupport
31st Oct 2009, 09:25
Airline pilots are an elite and our conditions should reflect this. We should be paid considerably more than flight attendents and loaders.

That's the trouble with Australia not having a proper class system, everyone thinks they're equal where as over here skilled people are respected and rewarded.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell us you are staying over there. :rolleyes:

You are the type of Pilot that gives Pilots a bad name. :mad:

Metro man
31st Oct 2009, 09:28
Ansett going broke was no help to me, I had my application on file with them at the time. I ended up overseas as did many ex Ansett pilots, and a sudden dumping of hundreds of jet drivers on the job market at once benefitted only the employers, many of them in this part of the world.

Had Ansett enjoyed competent management and a flexible workforce it might still be around today and Virgin Blue could have been another Compass.

Instead, the only airline left in Australia with traditional airline conditions is QANTAS, and they're under pressure from Virgin, Tiger and their own Jetstar. The race to the bottom is on. The demise of Ansett gave a massive ramp up to Virgin Blue with their reduced conditions and pay for your own rating deal.

Singapore Airline pilots negotiating position on their contract was weakened with the applications from well qualified candidates flooding in.


Ansett employees contributed to its down fall with inflexible working practices and rather queered the pitch for everyone else when they came onto the job market in large numbers. Especially when other airlines could point to them as an example of what could happen if changes weren't made in the employers favour.

Charles Darwin found that the animals best able to survive weren't the biggest or the strongest, but the most adaptable.


BTW I certainly staying over here, better pay, better opportunities, lower taxes and the profession of pilot is respected.

Pinky the pilot
31st Oct 2009, 10:19
With all due respect to some, I am beginning to wonder just what relevance the last few pages of posts have to the title of this thread.:confused:

And no, I will never fly with a LCC. For more than a few reasons.

Z Force
31st Oct 2009, 11:15
$70,000 for a senior cabin manager at AN Metro. You still aren't even close. Where are you getting your figures from? Are you just simply surmising?

DirectAnywhere
31st Oct 2009, 12:01
Here we go again....

oicur12
31st Oct 2009, 22:10
"The main difference was QANTAS in the past ran its business in such a way that it was profitable and could sustain a high cost unionised workplace."

Ahhh, mate, hate to burst your bubble but for most of QF history, it was a Government run airline and spent decades losing money that was supported by the tax payer. Being "run as a business" is a relatively new idea at QF and is only possible now as a result of my tax dollars propping it up to fly the flag as a flying club for all of those years before it was privatised.

Sunstar320
31st Oct 2009, 22:13
In other words unionism is not allowed where you work.....
Incorrect. There is most certainly a union involved in one part of metro's employer down south.

and lowerlobe stop being a tool and writing such dribble. At least Metro speaks more sense than you have ever done.

Shlonghaul
31st Oct 2009, 23:58
oicur12 Ahhh, mate, hate to burst your bubble but ...... Qantas was a private company whose shares were all purchased by the Federal Government after World War 2. It regularly made a profit and paid a dividend to the Government. Qantas was not a Government run airline, had it's own board and staff were not public servants but employees of Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. It's a much bigger airline since privatisation and the takeover of Qantas by Australian Airlines ;) and at times I'm not so sure that being "run as a business" has been a good thing in light of the Global Financial Crisis and its associated Corporate Greed, make that organised sanctioned theft. If you'd like anymore info than please feel free to ask. :ok:

Sunstar320 if you don't stop playing with your pitot tube you'll go blind :E

stubby jumbo
1st Nov 2009, 00:04
"Sunstar320 if you don't stop playing with your pitot tube you'll go blind"


.......'hey Schlonga........this is GOLD !!!LOL:D

lowerlobe
1st Nov 2009, 00:24
At least Metro speaks more sense than you have ever done.
Now that's just about as good as Metro man's thoughts on Australia needing a class society....

Sunstar320....when you finally become a pilot and in Metro Man's class society a member of Australia's elite then you can tell us your thoughts....ROFL
Incorrect. There is most certainly a union involved in one part of metro's employer down south.
By the way....If Metro Man is working overseas....and is south of us,does that mean he is employed in the Antarctic or do you classify Tasmania as overseas...:E

Schlonghaul is right and some here should stop playing with their pitot tubes...

rmcdonal
1st Nov 2009, 05:56
I think you maybe missing the point Metro man is trying to make. It is hard and very expensive to become an airline pilot. $100 000 would be about the minimum training required to sit in the right hand seat with the minimum hours, even in a regional.
To replace a flight attendant with some one off the street takes about 6 weeks with line training (ish). To replace a First officer with a person off the street would take approximately 1 year just for the licence before the 2-3Months of endorsement and line training. To replace a Captain with someone off the street would take….minimum 3 years just to obtain the licence, most likely 5 for the minimum standard. I’m not sure how long it takes to learn how to pack bags in the back, when I did it they just assumed I knew what I was doing :E
:ok::}

propgirl
1st Nov 2009, 06:20
That might be correct for the newbies coming in now, but for many of the high hour contract pilots preently roaming the world, picking and choosing where and what, they would have done not much more than forked out for a commercial pilots licence and a twin/IFR rating, and by a relatively young age, their RPT employer would have paid top $ for every rating, every hour there-after .. single pilot turbine, turbine 2 pilot, then to the fully paid cycle of jet ratings and endorsements - thats how it was not too long ago.
Times have changed. I hope all who deserve it, get top dollars and a happy family.