View Full Version : QF Flight Attendants Strike?

Douglas Mcdonnell
20th Feb 2003, 22:15
Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows the reasons behind the F/As strike next week. In the current climate it seems a bit short sighted.


frank Borman
20th Feb 2003, 22:20
Probably because they are sick of getting a rodgering from their employer. Good on them I say.

Douglas Mcdonnell
20th Feb 2003, 22:23
I reckon their union could be leading them down the garden path.

21st Feb 2003, 00:01
Very constructive Frankie. As usual your input is exemplary. Keep it up champ. Maybe one day.

It is both stupid and irresponsible to strike now when the world is in such disarray. Qantas still offered 3 + 3% bonus.

frank Borman
21st Feb 2003, 00:18
Ohhh poor thumpa, you realise I only post here to get a rise from you don't you.

21st Feb 2003, 00:43
See "QF Strikebreakers" under Cabin Crew:


"Here's a warning for all of those, mostly ex AN crew, who have been shortlisted in the recent QF recruitment drive.

If you were one of those contacted by QF in Sydney this morning and innocently asked if it would be okay if they forwarded your personnel 'jacket' to MAM for a possible two days training over the weekend and a subsequent three days work early next week then before you say yes, do yourself a favour and ask 'what th...?'............"

Very interesting goings on.


21st Feb 2003, 01:00
Douglas, first of all you ask for the reasons behind cabcrew action, and eight minutes later you are sufficiently informed that you believe their union is misleading them?? Give us a break!

Buster Hyman
21st Feb 2003, 03:25

No service in the QF cabins!...:eek: .....How long's this strike been going for????


21st Feb 2003, 05:12
It is up to each individual Captain to ensure the operational integrity of his/her crew. Methinks a few appropriate EP's questions to the new recruits, pre-departure, would allay fears.

22nd Feb 2003, 02:24
Yeah really tough ones like how do you disarm this door. Or what service do you run on a syd-bn sector. That would really sort out the "safety professionals" from these pretenders.

Alpha Charlie Bravo
22nd Feb 2003, 02:43

I'll do you a deal, when you have an epiphany and miraculously find yourself able to rejoin the other adults and conduct conversations on topics other than aeroplanes then I will stop pushing a cart for a living.

Guess I'll be pushing a cart for the rest of my days!

Loser :yuk:

frank Borman
22nd Feb 2003, 05:21
What do you expect ABC. People like qfpaypacket are so caught up in their arrogance that they forget where they came from.

22nd Feb 2003, 06:16
frank and ACB -
I think you're being a bit harsh - he could probably tell you how many chicks he (thinks) he has pulled and discuss that in length. ;)

qfpaypacket -
You're the very reason we have a cockpit door. It's easier to ignore your kind.

Buster -
That's funny.... :rolleyes: :D

Douglas Mcdonnell
22nd Feb 2003, 06:26
QFCABIN. So what you really mean to say is that you are too embarresed to say why the F/as are striking? I just think that you could be playing into the hands of management. No body is irreplaceable these days. Stck your head out of the galley sometime and have a look at what has been happening in this industry for the last 14 years.

22nd Feb 2003, 06:43
Douglas -
The Long Haul cabin crew are striking to achieve recognition of the fact they have has crew removed from the cabin yet the number of pax has increased. If the crew reduction has saved the company X amount then I don't see it unreasonable to expect a share of that. After all - they ARE working harder as a result. You can't dispute that they work harder as a result of crew reduction. Simple really. In effect they are doing more work for less money (if they accept 3%).

Last year Qantas committed itself (in writing) to discussing the above as a means of recognising this significant contribution. They have done nothing but walk away from this obligation.

Buster Hyman
22nd Feb 2003, 21:51
Ditzy, I didn't realise that CASA had changed the 1 crew per 36(I think) pax! I would've thought that was a legislative change. Or, was it that QF, like AN at times, overcrewed the flights to appease mobs like the FAAA or just to have a higher level of personal service? Maybe the more pax you mention, come from being on a bigger aircraft? ;)

Perhaps, you had it good before & now you've lost it. Oh, and before you have a hissy fit, I had it good too you know.:(

22nd Feb 2003, 22:23
Buster -
Hissy fit? Please - I am a flight attendant! :rolleyes:

No seriously, the aircraft have more pax due to configuration changes. The service/product has increased too and by taking off a crew member it HAS increased everyone's workload. This process has saved LOTS of money. That is a result of the harder work of Long Haul cabin crew. Why shouldn't they want more money for doing ALOT more? Really their workload has increased signicantly and they should be compensated. They are asking for a small part of their contribution.

Also the main point of the strike is QF have refused to discuss the issue, which they committed to do in writing. The FAAA just want the chance to give the issue the attention it deserves. QF don't seem to think it is that big an issue but try to put yourself in the shoes of a Long Haul FA.

What sort of workforce and union would stand by and see their conditions being ERODED?!? They would be stupid in not trying to protect what they already have/had! (By the way, I believe a further crew reduction is in the pipline...)

The phrase "being rogered" pretty much sums it up well.

MIss Behaviour
22nd Feb 2003, 23:14

What are we talking about in dollar terms in what QF have saved by having one less f/a on certain flights?

It seems they are defeating the purpose to give a payrise to everyone to compensate for the extra workload, when it would have been better to leave everything like it was before ie with the 'extra' f/a?

:confused: :confused:

23rd Feb 2003, 04:14
Miss -
I understand your point but is quite a large amount of money. I don't know the $$ amount - I just do the coffee.... :D The cabin crew are only asking for a SMALL amount of the saving in recognition of the fact THEY WORK HARDER. The strike is about QF's unwillingness to discuss the issue even though they said they would.

Buster Hyman
23rd Feb 2003, 04:19

I guess my point is that the rulings of crews per pax haven't changed on the aircraft, from a safety perspective. Service levels are an altogether different matter. I remember being in AN first class on a MEL-CBR sector at dinner time. The crew worked liked cut cats to get the full meal & bar service done in time. I was actually a bit tardy & the CM came up to me & said; "It's not MEL-SIN you know!" :D :D My only point being, that under the law, they cannot go below a certain standard, however, from a service standpoint there is no definative number of crew per level of service. In which case, you have a contentious point with your company.

Anyway, fight the good fight &, at the very least, do it for the staff that are about to be shafted again!!:(


23rd Feb 2003, 06:05
I think the whole QF Cabin Crew situation stinks.

How can a junior cabin crew member have an earning capacity not that far off a junior 767 s/o?

There are 4000 of them earning this much +++.

Cabin crew have it incredibly good, six weeks of training and you can go from a waitress to an FA, and suddenly become a 'safety professional' etc etc etc.

Wish it took 6 weeks to go from working in Safeway to having a 767 endorsement......And have it cost zilch.......

It is pretty obvious from the responses in customer surveys that customers want bright, young, energetic, happy flight attendants serving them, not old 20, 30 year employees who clearly appear pretty much just their for the ride.

Sure there are plenty of older, seasoned cabin crew who are very good at what they do, but they are getting paid too much in a job that really doesn't require all that much experience.

23rd Feb 2003, 06:18

good luck, you are probably about to be sacrificed.

but I agree and will stand right behind you. By a fair distance mind you.

23rd Feb 2003, 06:39
Careful GT-R, you might get what you wish for.

"Wish it took 6 weeks to go from working in Safeway to having a 767 endorsement......And have it cost zilch....... "

Imagine if the rat offered S/O jobs at 15grand a year, endorsement paid for. There'd be a queue a mile long. How long did those engineers take to convert?

Why are you getting raggy because others are trying to improve (maintain?) their lot? Is it fair that real estate agents or HR people make 2 or 3 times what you do? If you think you are worth more, you know what to do.........

23rd Feb 2003, 14:30
Well said GT-R.
From a regulatory point of view it takes about 6 weeks to train
a suitable applicant off the street as a F/A.
You talk of how hard you work- try a busy cafe or restaurant on a Saturday night. Less than one third the pay for what is in effect the same job. There are HUNDREDS of x airline employees who have (NOT by choice) had a taste of the real world, and don't like it at all- be careful or you WILL be flattened in the rush.
Remember that most of you are earning FAR beyond your education. training and interlectual capabilities; Don't bite the hand that feeds you as YOU need QF a heck of a lot more than they need you.



23rd Feb 2003, 14:52
Without getting embroiled in this too much ;)

The reason the stop-work meeting was called is, there was a clause written into the last EBA stating that QF would recognise the additional workload incurred by cabin crew after reducing the numbers of crew on longhaul flights. The sole reason the last EBA (and pay-freeze) was agreed to was because of this clause. The crew feel the company has not fulfilled its obligation in regards to this clause, and has basically ignored it ---- instead asking the longhaul crew to take an effective pay-cut by reducing the number of paid hours in a bid period, --- I wouldn't expect anyone to understand the details, unless they understand our rostering/ duty- pay procedures!!

Thats the main reason, but there are many more; Overseas Base increases etc --- if you really want to know the details, go to the FAAA website . All of the information is available there.

Agree with the longahul crew or not, it matters not.

And as for GT-R ---- it is amusing that (some) techies are so fascinated with cabin crew rates of pay. We dont give a toss what you guys get paid, so why the fascination in what we get paid? Its like comparing apples and oranges ---- yes, we are part of the same team, yet the job descriptions, responsibilities and requirements are so different, that any comparison between tech crew and cabin crew rates of pay is pointless (and divisive).

Let us get on with ours, and you get on with yours.

Cheers :p

23rd Feb 2003, 21:09
Reminds me of the CX Flt Att strike a number of years back.

The company decided to train ground staff to operate in an emergency capacity only (operation of doors/escape slides/tapes/evacuation commands etc).
No service tasks were given (ie: meal/drink services).

This didnt take long at all and was legally recognised by the appropriate licensing authority of HK.

Now if necessary Qantas would in all probability do this and I'm sure the ground staff that have hoped and wished to be F/A's may just achieve their goal - only this time on a possibly permanent basis.

In an industry that is struggling to keep its head above water this irresponsible action by the Flt Att union may cause more harm than they realise.

Sure QF may be profitable at the moment but so was United et al' a number of years back also.

3% + a bonus not enough?
I hope they hang themselves.
If QF F/A's gave the same service that you get with CX/SQ etc they may be worth it but not in this case.

Lunacy and wishful thinking at its best.

Kaptin M
23rd Feb 2003, 22:50
I'm about to make an OBSERVATION here - NOT start a cat and dog fight!!

The 6 weeks (quoted earlier by GT-R) is mainly made up of the extra "niceties" eg. inflight meal and beverage service, handling disruptive pax, PA etiquette, etc.
The REQUIREMENTS - as prescribed by LAW - do not include those.

The actual BASIC REQUIREMENTS for a Flight Attendant to be capable of opening exits in an emergency, and assisting pax evacuation (or re-directing them), and dealing with an inflight fire, can be covered in 1 or 2 days.

But let's get down to the "nitty gritty" stuff.

Crew wages pale into insignificance when one looks at the TOTAL number of employees who depend on the revenue earned when that aircraft flies.
The REAL drain on profits, from slaries, is in the legions of non revenue producing ground and office staff that airline management employs. Jobs that do not require full time employees, and that could be contracted out at far less expense.

If Geoff and Margaret took 2 months holiday, is QANTAS going to cease operations....would anybody even MISS them??!! :eek:

As much as a strike will focus attention on the F/A's plight, it may well be over within a couple of days.

The bigger threat that management fear is the decline of profits (because that directly affects THEIR [enormous] bonus payments), and one of the reasons for a decline in profits can be as a result of a decrease in pax revenue.
Pax get p!ssed off - and write nasty letters to airlines - if their service is degraded, or NON-EXISTENT.

The campaign will obviously last a lot longer than a strike, but your exposure to management "tactics" is dramatically reduced.

24th Feb 2003, 02:14

Striking Qantas staff call on CASA
February 24, 2003

QANTAS flight attendants have asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to rule whether a fast-track training course it says the airline held in preparation for a strike tonight jeopardises safety.

Johanna Brem, of the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA), said the airline was planning to use 100 undertrained staff to fill in for international flight attendants, who plan to stop work for 14 hours starting at midnight tonight.

Qantas has denied the suggestion, saying all cabin crews working during the strike will be experienced and meet regulatory requirements.

Ms Brem said: "Normally you have a 10-day training course for a new aircraft, but they did a one-day conversion training on the weekend.

"The FAAA has alerted CASA to look at the fast-track training and rule on whether it's acceptable or not."

On Friday, the FAAA failed to win an Australian Industrial Relations Commission order that Qantas be disallowed from using the "scab labour", due to safety and security concerns.

"Cabin crew are first and foremost safety professionals with extensive training and experience," Ms Brem said.

"We are the difference between lives saved and lives lost in aircraft emergencies."

Qantas said all scheduled flights would be running during the strike, although there may be some delays.

International flight attendants are taking the action to push a log of claims, including a seven per cent pay rise, in reward for productivity gains the FAAA says have saved Qantas $40 million annually.

They will stop work from midnight until 2pm (AEDT) tomorrow and plan to meet in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth tomorrow morning to discuss strategy.


24th Feb 2003, 05:07
The Qantas response at
Qantas.com (http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2003/feb03/2881)

24th Feb 2003, 09:09

Agree with you completely.

The airline has the highest employee-to-aircraft ratio of any carrier in SE Asia.

Flight ops training is a good example - massively overstaffed with 'project consultants ' and the like who produce nothing and add no value.

The F/A strike is complex - (CSM's earn $100k for e.g) but we have the lowest number of F/A's per aircraft of any of the majors in SEA.

Even with the best will in the world the cabin crew service level is going to suffer.

good luck to F/A's for tomorrow.


24th Feb 2003, 11:12
Perhaps the ratio of staff to a/c could be reduced by some of the 850 "executives" who qualify for the "executive bonus scheme".


Douglas Mcdonnell
25th Feb 2003, 04:15
Strike me aray. Unfortunately, at the end of the day its the public that suffers. These people actyally have something to do with geting your wages paid. It certainly is an idealistic point the FAAA is trying to make, but in the current climate a very foolish one indeed. But then again , if you make your own bed I guess you have to be prepared to lie in it.

Could self service aircraft cabins become a reality?


25th Feb 2003, 04:57
Self service or BYO

its already here.

Its called VIRGIN

Big Hairy Potatoes
25th Feb 2003, 06:54
I was talking to a friend the other day and asked him what he earned after doing 4 years at Uni. He told me straight out he earned $29,000 and after 2- 3 years was earning about $40,000-$50,000. He was doing 40-50 hrs a week and got 4 weeks holiday a year and 18 sick days. I think these guys should look at reality and realise how good a wicket their on. Business is business and a company is allowed to make the call how they make the shareholders money, not bow to overpaid whingers. Go get a normal job and see how hard you work and how hard your done by.
I've just got to sit down now, the altitude on this soap box is making me dizzy.
As for the virgin comment,don't some people get antsy when somone tries something different and the public go for it.

25th Feb 2003, 07:53
Let's stop being mealy mouthed here and cut to the chase!
Have ex Ansett F/A's done a quick refresher over the weekend and are now being used as scab labour by Qantas? ;)

25th Feb 2003, 08:24
Do you ever hear FAs discuss about how much tech crew are paid??? :D

The main point of the strike is that QF is not willing to enter discussions about something THAT THEY COMMITTED TO DO IN WRITING.... The FAs are simply wanting the recognition that QF said they would. QF's proposal does not recognise even the smallest bit of the money they saved through the crew reduction amongst other things. And they won't even discuss it!

Why would the FAs stand by and watch their conditions get worse? Regardless of how wonderful some of you people think that they are. Why would anyone let anything go without a fight?

With record profits, new aircraft and routes, new uniforms, service upgrades and plans to buy stakes in other airlines it seems hypocritical that QF wants the FAs to make sacrifices. As with all unions the FAAA was quick to make sacrifices post 9-11. But with all this talk of profits how can QF justify being so tight now? QF is willing to help out AA and buy a stake. Yet QF will not even recognise it's own workforce whom it continually thanks for being "so hard-working through and understand through times....." Or is that just moral-boosting nonsense?

The above is simply my understanding and opinion about the situation. I am not chucking a tanty (Buster... :D) as I am not a Long Haul FA and have nothing to lose or gain from this strike action. Just an opinion. Although it is hard to not to get worked up when reading such narrow-minded views like Potato's. How about being constructive, mate?

Yes. I wonder how it will be for the strikebreakers (scab is such a nasty word) when this all blows over?

25th Feb 2003, 08:43
If you think scab is a "nasty" word Dboy then I suggest you grow up,and rather quickly mate, otherwise you are going to be rather quickly unemployed! ;)

one ball
25th Feb 2003, 14:24
You're so tuff amos. Ruff 'n' tuff. Can I be like you one day?

what is the sound of one ball slapping

25th Feb 2003, 23:33
Sorry - that wasn't directed at you... Was just saying it sounds nasty. I was asking a geniune question. What will it be like for the strike breakers? Will there be a list like the one for the pilots? How will the other crew react when working along side them.

Besides I was answering your question. Yes flights did depart with "scab" labour. Happy amos, I used that word :D

27th Feb 2003, 09:29
It all comes down to shareholders. FUTURE likely events are factored into the market. Shareholders (and potential shareholders) want to see what measures QF will take to 'tighten its belt" during the downturn in international pax traffic. Their pleasure or otherwise in what they see will be reflected in the market price. It's not right. It is no way to treat the staff who are on the 'frontline' of customer service but it is reality.


27th Feb 2003, 21:50

Re-read my post. I agree with you on your three points (particularly the crew-pax ratio's).

28th Feb 2003, 02:59
Kaptin-M - I'll not discuss 89 with you but it appears to me that your comments of 23/2 demonstrate that you are one of the few on prune that actually understands what is going on. I would like to know what the solution is though. Why do airline management always go after crew?I have worked for An and QF and QF has more fat by miles on the ground side.

Evacu8/Ditzyboy. I think pay is really the issue here. The other day I had a junior CSM moaning to me about this and that and when I was informed that this person had a base of 65k and grossing 95k my sympathy was less than aroused. I was too polite to mention that even though I am technically the CSM's superior I actually earn less. Also, I never hear the end of it from F/a's about what pilots earn.

Tool Time Two
28th Feb 2003, 10:49
Well, if the scabs in the cabin are ex AN crew, they sure had a good grounding, having flown with scabs in the cockpit at AN post '89.:cool:

28th Feb 2003, 11:36
I have only skimmed whats been said so apologies if repeating - but my understanding was that the QF cabin crew already took a wage rise as a trade off for 1 less cabin crew.

The service on most QF internationals is appalling. There are exceptions to this rule of course and those people usually get praised by pax when leaving the a/c - unfortunately these crews are rare - except for the Perth based crews - although as the senior sydney and melbourne people come across the service will no doubt fall). Personally I think if QF cabin crew can negotiate a pay rise then good on them. What i would rather see though is a pay rise and a drastic improvement in service too - after all the pax pay for both service and safety.

What would be nice to see is all of the cabin crew taking pride in their work not just the odd one or two. Its a shame because it is a great job, not exactly hard, and can be fairly rewarding.

Apollo 4
3rd Mar 2003, 11:46
Here we go again now the Cabin Crew are revolting........

If the over paid and under worked want to go on strike well good on them.

They have already had a 3% bonus + an offer of 6% increase and receive a share in employee dividends (3%) whats that 12% , but it isn't enough.

Maybe they will all resign together and let all the unemployed have a job... yep there are a lot of foreigners as well as Aussies out there looking...

Just like the AFAP perfect timing, perfect strategy, perfectly greedy and stupid..

I can see the head lines now ..............

Douglas Mcdonnell
3rd Mar 2003, 22:29
To quote Apollo 4 . "Here we go again now the cabin crew are revolting". I could take this somewhere but...... What about flying United on the BOILER RUNS over the pond!!!

4th Mar 2003, 02:12
Apollo 4,

I agree with your comments. I have never met, anywhere else in society, a group of people that is paid so far outside their skillset. In a few short weeks, you can transform from a waitress into a cabin crew member who is checked to line (and all without costing you a $). The tragedy is that decisions about industrial action etc are being made by union figures and I am sure that there are many in the cabin crew ranks who did not vote for this (was there a vote at all?). The motives for this action need to be seriously questioned. I am aware of the reasons being stated on this thread but there are other more sensible ways to address them.


Douglas Mcdonnell
4th Mar 2003, 04:46
Could not agree more Long Hauler. The Proffesional Skills, cost to own self and wages paid scales do not weigh up at all. There are countless differing professions that require years of training only to be paid less. Is the FAAA is just the dominent lemming leading its mates over the cliff?

Pimp Daddy
4th Mar 2003, 04:59
(and all without costing you a $)

Not quite - they do have to do a First Aid course.

But not a patch on the tens of thousands for a seat up the front or the many thousands for the LAME downstairs.

5th Mar 2003, 03:25
Perhaps one way of improving service on QF flights and reducing F.A workload is to negotiate a wage decrease so management can hire and therefore allocate more staff per flight.

Two choices here, work your butt of for a fistful of extra dollars or have a more stress free day with a slightly reduced package.

I know what I would rather.

5th Mar 2003, 06:23
If the vast majority of the Australian public were aware that these F.As were earning roughly 70 - 90K for their declining level of service, don't care attitude and above all, arrogance, they would not have one iota of support. The officials at the FAAA have alot to answer. They should take a good, hard look at themselves and realise that 'glamourous and glorified' days of aviation have gone. It's a business.............................. not a lifestyle provider. My advice .......Wake up and get off your pedistalls otherwise you will be knocked off sooner than you think.

5th Mar 2003, 07:23
Here - Here!
Wake Up - Grow Up.
Get a real job.

6th Mar 2003, 13:26

There is another side to all of this chaps, a private message from a fellow PPRuNer FA, for your information.

QF FAs Strike Thread

Please stop the "QF FAs Strike" thread. It has become a slagging ground for pilots to whinge about FAs.

As an Impulse FA I work VERY hard for my pay and I will not have some two-bit dickless wannabe pilots slagging my colleauges!

QF Long Haul FAs have had years to perfect their conditions and why would they stand back and see them being eroded?! The views of the 'pilots' are not constuctive and at very best poorly informed and narrow minded!

Qantas Long Haul flight attendants have not always had such rosey conditions. None of the posters has stopped to think about the 30 hour duty limits and two days home veryt two months with very little pay (and no trip allowances) that the first Qantas Lomg Haul FAs (stewards) under!

It is disgusting that this thread has been allowed to continue!

Please make the 'pilots' aware that what they have done is not only pathetic but only serves to further the "us and them" attitudes that airline companies have fought so hard to get rid of.

On a final note I'd just like to mention that the FAs on PPRUNE should be commended by not stooping to such low a level by responding to this nonsense! my bolding W

Thank you very much for your time!

6th Mar 2003, 21:07
Well if the attitude of long haul flight attendants is as it was 20 years or so ago (which I suppose it is considering many are still around) I dont think a terribly large number of long haul flight attendants would call an Impulse FA a colleague, such is their attitude to 'domestic' 'short haul' FAs.
I have seen many times recently where the long haulers just consider themselves to be so superior to 'the rest.'

Then you wonder why it takes them 3-4 times as long to get the cabin ready on the ground....And why it takes up to 21/2hrs to serve a meal to 25 pax....

I have no doubt that short haul FAs work very hard. Multi-sector days on your feet all the time, time pressures etc. I think the long haul operation might just be a tad more relaxed though....There isn't much to do for 8hrs when everyone is sleeping.

Apollo 4
6th Mar 2003, 23:56
The only reason we have not heard from the flight attendants on pprune is because they haven't worked out where it is yet.

Try sorting out a bitch flight between two male flight attendants and a female attendant over who cut whoms grass the night before. Yes these blues do occur, really great for the passengers NOT and enhances harmony and efficiency in the tube NOT....

The irony is that with these interactions the service declines and the pay is expected increase.

I feel very sorry for the minority of great FA's (this means you Vikki, Emma) as I know that you guys are not apart of this obscene grab for cash and run excellent and dedicated crews.


7th Mar 2003, 02:49
Said it before and I'll say it again. Plenty of ex compass, ansett etc cabin crew out there who'd do the job bloody well for a little less dough. They'd never take their job for granted. As one who thought he had a " job for life " , who is now working a lot harder for less bucks , I can assure you that many of the Q.F Cabin Crew I know are well aware of their great conditions and aren't in favour of industrial action. There are others, however, who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real job and they are the ones that seem to be crying loudest about how bad they have it!
Q.F can go broke , just like any airline in the world. Big profits can turn to big losses very quickly. With the threat of other market entrants with lower cost structures making a move on the aussie market ,and dj slowly but steadily capturing market share the feed trough is no longer guaranteed to be consantly refilled.

Beware and take care, better cop it sweet and give the hand that feeds you a gentle nip instead of biting the whole bloody arm off !

8th Mar 2003, 06:44
Sat ABC News Online

Posted: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 17:04 AEDT

Qantas trains strike breakers instead of staff: union

Qantas has confirmed it is training people to work as flight attendants if there is more industrial action by international flight crews.

About 2,000 attendants staged a 14-hour strike last month as part of a 7 per cent pay claim. The Flight Attendants Association hopes to resolve the issue during talks with the airline on Monday.

Johanna Brem from the association says Qantas is wasting money training strike breakers when some of its own staff cannot work because they are unable to update their safety credentials.

"They're training people they actually haven't got a job for and it's particularly vulnerable people - ex-Ansett flight attendants who haven't worked for 14 months," she said.

"Qantas is basically training them up in case they need strike breakers. And our members are at home having no work to do at the moment - and Qantas has to keep paying them, of course."

8th Mar 2003, 09:50
O do not pretend to know the in and outs and rights or wrongs of this dispute, I would only ask that you keep it professional and support your fellowaviation professionals when and where it is appropriate without resorting to slagging off or perceived entrenched stereotypes.

They are not the enemy.

If you wish to be respected as pilots then you must respect the other professionals who share the responsibility of delivering your passengers to the other end in one piece and hopefully raring to do it again with your airline. :)

9th Mar 2003, 05:40
But Woomera, they aren't professionals.

Being a flight attendant is not a profession.

9th Mar 2003, 10:18
A lot of people missing the point here.

QF are reneging on an AGREEMENT (seems to be a popular management style lately). An employee group is trying to defend a set of conditions. They deserve support, not denigration.

As an aside- would YOU want to deal with the public? Ever tried it? Smiling and being polite to drunken idiots who deserve a good clip over the ear etc etc. How would you feel if QF reneges on a pilot pay deal? Or brings in strike breakers when the talks break down- oh, that's happened before, hasn't it?
And as for who is worth what; guess what? There are loads of young guys in GA who would climb into a jet for a lot less than the current going rate. Does that make you over paid?
People in glass houses............

Apollo 4
9th Mar 2003, 10:51

Firstly dealing with the public is what they are paid to do, if that is viewed as a repulsive task or an "inconvenience" then they are in the wrong job. Judging by the service quality there are alot of them in the wrong job.

Secondly how do passengers get drunk ? either the cabin crew have failed their duty by allowing an intoxicated person to board the aircraft or they have supplied sufficient alcohol to a passenger to cause that effect... either way if this situation occurs cabin crew have failed their duty.

Thirdly QF management are offering 6% they want 13%, get real they are well over paid as it is.

:yuk: :yuk:

9th Mar 2003, 12:03
Thanks Apollo 4 for making my point. Missing the point, that is.

The dispute is about a broken agreement. It doesn't matter what is offered; the bosses are just trying to 'pinch' something. It is the attitude displayed here that allows such things to even be contemplated.

Agreed dealing with the public is what F/A's do, and are paid to do etc. My point was that this seems to be taken as some petty, meaningless, mindless endevour. Try it some time. People don't have to be drunk to be insufferable, merely an example. If you want to get into who is worth what- that's a whole seperate issue. Merely pointing out that the pilot group is eternally wrestling with that one (and will continue to do so in the {near}future- under what circumstances do you want your IRs to proceed? Litanies of broken agreements etc?).

Principles, or lack of them. How do YOU want to be treated?

9th Mar 2003, 12:06
ferris -
SPOT ON! Especially about the glass houses!

QF are not keeping their end of a deal that was cut (and made in writing) with the FAAA. It isn't about who gets paid what and how much they do (or don't) smile! Plain and simple really.

Also can I add that FAs never discuss what pilots get paid and NEVER enter into discussion about whether it is too much! Come on guys....

Turbofan Tool
9th Mar 2003, 16:21
Aww cummon ditzyboi.....

i've been in bars where what i would classify as decent FA's have busted out the arguement that the captain should shout drinks for the crew 'cause..... wait for it.................."he earns more than us" ....two different professions... one has ~$200k of training, the other is a workforce without qualification..... except EPs of course.

Qf FAs are the highest paid in the world!!!!

The 767 Pilots are the Lowest paid in the World!!!

Enough of these arguments....

Let's all go for the best conditions for ALL OF US.... UNITED WE STAND... DIVIDED WE FALL!!!

10th Mar 2003, 00:03
Turbo -
But the "you guys earn more than us" line is the only way us male FAs can get a drink out of the Techies! :D Not like the girls, who don't even have to try. They get drinks without having to ask :mad:

Oh and I have to disagree about FAs not having qualifications. After 2.5 years I am 'qualified' in a range of skills I consider to be valuable to the success of QF.

Smiling at 0515 (yes I am one of the ones that smiles!)
Being happy at 0515
Mind reading
Taking abuse
Smiling whilst taking abuse
Smiling whilst collecting a cup containing nail clippings and spit in it and then saying "Thankyou" for the privilige!
Undoing the wrongs of travel agents, other airlines, ground staff, family......
Finding space for a motor home in the overhead lockers
Lifting said motor home and then helping the pax to the gate with it on arrival
Looking proud to be serving 'the Box'
Being able to 'sign' to someone in the galley that we need more cups, napkins, nuts, red wine, diet coke and stirrers for the cart
Doing a hot meal with bar and hot drinks on a 40 minute sector (thank God that's over!)
Breaking up fights between pax (or crew and pax!)
Moving pax so the party of 11 that checked in at -10mins can sit together
Acknowledging to a click of the fingers or after being called "rubbish man"
Copping abuse about food I had nothing to do with preparing
Copping abuse about the weather at the destination airport
Being at the beck and call of every pax on every flight every day
Receiving no thanks for giving up my crew meal to a pax who doesn't like fruit cake
Being able to serve 110 pax breakfast on a flight only catered for 90
Changing nappies
Playing baby sitter
Always making the rubbish fit into the bins
Being able to say "Have a good afternoon..." to someone who has just called me every name under the sun for whatever reason
Accepting being sole reason for someone's bad day (after being onboard for two mins!)
Turning said pax around
Being competent in all aspects of first aid
Wiping vomit off tray tables and sidewalls (while smiling and saying thank you!)
Pretending to care about some total stranger's problem and then have to fix it
At all times (in case of emergency): knowing exactly what to do, when to do it, what everyone else will be doing and what to do if the first thing doesn't work - all without thinking....
Still smiling whilst doing all of this after working 6 days and 65 hours, away from home. AND BEING WILLING TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN!

The majority of FAs are worth every cent that they are paid. The same can be said for other customer contact staff too! And when an EBA is up I think that the majority of FAs can rightly ask for more.

Yes there are some FAs who really shouldn't be in the job for whatever reason. Yes there are some FAs who are only in the job for the money. I have witnessed some QF FAs (and from other airlines too) that are not worth the ground they walk on. In a way though these FAs lose out more than anyone. Coz they all go home to an empty house and feel miserable about the lack of substance in their lives. Not one of them feels happy about who they are and what they do to contribute to society. They all sit in their homes, alone, and secretly look forward to the next time they go to work. Coz it is the only place where people will give them the time of day.

Lets not slag out the entire FA contingent as we have done.... It is only the minority that some of you refer to. And yes they all drive between their four properties in some fancy car wearing $500 sunglasses and looking ever so glam. But for the reasons I mentioned above it is the rest of us, decent - hard workers, who have the last laugh.

Happy. Positive Energy..... :D

10th Mar 2003, 00:26
Another good talent I notice you lot have is being able to either chat to the FA next to you or do paperwork while doing silent review on takeoff.

10th Mar 2003, 00:37
Oh yeh, GT-R, you better believe it...
Chatting, paper work, reading latest Who , doing one's nails AND perving on 23D - all whilst doing the silent review! :D Ha ha ha.

10th Mar 2003, 03:11
Come now GT-R that's a little unfair to place all FA's into the one proverbial basket.

That would be like me saying that all pilots have short arms and deep pockets!! :}

Jesting aside, whether or not you agree or disagree with what it is that the L/H FA's had a stop work meeting over, as crew we should all be united and work together to achieve the best possible outcome for ALL of us. We shouldn't be passing judgement on whether they earn enough or too much or not enough.

Frankly, I don't give a rats what pilots earn, or for that matter what any other person in the company earns. I only care about what I earn. Selfish? Yes!


Capt Fathom
10th Mar 2003, 04:50
But the "you guys earn more than us" line is the only way us male FAs can get a drink out of the Techies! Not like the girls, who don't even have to try. They get drinks without having to ask I think this is just a normal boy thing !

Alpha Charlie Bravo
10th Mar 2003, 05:35
It disappoints me to realise that colleagues who I have always considered 'brothers in arms' ie those at the coal face as opposed to those in the ivory towers, have so little respect for their colleagues in the cabin.

Ferris, well said and well done for reminding those who seem all to keen to bag CC and therefore miss the point.

For those of you who have done just that, think about this. Public fears and prejudices aside, software technicians have long ago developed the technology to permanently remove pilots from the aircraft equation forever, every bean counters wet dream!

No such software technology exists or is ever likely to, that will make cabin crew redundant.

All and any rebuttals eagerly anticipated.

PS when the next '89 happens, just listen for the deafening silence from amongst the cabin crew ranks.

10th Mar 2003, 08:04
Oh dear!...this is a very sad thread! All of it!! :(
I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side? :confused:

13th Mar 2003, 12:08
Brothers in arms ??? I don't think so. Just because we sit in the same tube?????Totally different job,totally different mindset, totally different union, totally different attitude to job and dare I say it, totally different attitude to company!!!!!!!

13th Mar 2003, 22:43
I would like to challenge the person making comments about f/a's being uneducated and quote
"But Woomera, they aren't professionals. Being a flight attendant is not a profession. "

who the hell is this idiot ? Just because the requirements for oz carriers don't specify teritary education I think you'll find the MANY of us have degrees or diplomas. In the past week I flown with other f/a's who have have degrees in Bach Business/Law, Bach Education and Bach Arts - Japanese languages etc. By saying that we are not professionals is very naive - does that mean that police officers and fire fighters are not professionals because they were trained by their employers ?:confused:

Sorry to dissapoint you but when I hear and see my fellow f/a's performing First Aid/CPR, calming frightened people, taking abuse and 1000 other duties then I do belive that we are professionals. Those who disagree obviously have never been in command of a RPT aircraft before.

bitter balance
13th Mar 2003, 22:58
Cabinboy - I'm not taking a position here but: the acknowledged definition of a professional is someone who requires a qualification (and sometimes further courses of training) to be admitted to a body. i.e. Doctor, Lawyer and yes even a pilot.

Alpha Charlie Bravo
14th Mar 2003, 02:42

There is an enormous difference between being able to read and being able to understand what is written. Don't confuse the two.


Alas, you are spot on. This is a very sad thread, all of it! What motivated me to contribute to such mindless drivel in the first place I have no idea!

:confused: :rolleyes:

14th Mar 2003, 13:23
Bitter balance is right.... Nursing isn't even a profession, yet you take 3 + years to get trained at a formal institution.

Having said that there is still the ability to "act in professional manner" which I suspect CabinBoy is trying to convey.

Lead Balloon
14th Mar 2003, 21:00
adjective 1 of, belonging to, or connected with a profession. 2 competent; worthy of professional. 3 engaged in specified activity as paid occupation, or (derogatory) fanatically. noun professional person. professionally adverb.

·adjective 1authorized, experienced, licensed, official, qualified, trained. 2able, businesslike, competent, conscientious, educated, efficient, expert, knowledgeable, masterly, proficient, proper, skilful, skilled, thorough. 3paid. noun expert, master, colloquial pro, specialist.

So basically if you do stuff for money - you are a professional.

Prostitutes are called professionals for a reason.

To belong to a "learned profession" is another. And I gaurantee you all that being a pilot does not comply.

15th Mar 2003, 04:34
What are the characteristics of a "profession"? Miller, Adams and Beck (1993) proposed that that certain behaviors contribute to professionalism, as follows:

* There is an educational background required to ensure safe and effective practice.

* Members of the profession adhere to a code of ethics.

* Members participate in professional organizations.

* Members are accountable for continuing education and competency.

* Professionals publish and communicate their knowledge and advances in their profession.

* A profession develops, evaluates and uses theory as a basis for practice.

* Members of the profession are involved in research.


15th Mar 2003, 04:41
When I was completing my B. Nursing at Uni I had to complete a piece for a unit entitled "Profession of Nursing". The piece was about whether nursing is or is not a profession. Throughout my research and 3500 odd words I discovered that it was in fact not a profession as determined by some body of people. If say, I used 10 resources for study, 9 of them indicated that Nursing was not a true profession. Even though Nurses can belong to a professional body and act in a professional manner........ Sorry it was 4 years and a whole lifetime ago. I fly thank God - Nursing pay was the pits! Nurses - they ARE underpaid!

SORRY - back to avaiation.....

Mr Seatback 2
16th Mar 2003, 12:04
Well - this is a lively topic isn't it...

Quite simply, I think Ditzy and Cabinboy have answered the statement (I don't ever think it was a question) that Cabin Crew are professionals...

And to further Mins' statement:

* There is an educational background required to ensure safe and effective practice.

There are a number of competencies - primarily humanities based - that Cabin Crew are expected to possess. Most of them are aspects of human behaviour you cannot teach - such as empathy, intuition, flexibility to adapt to ever changing situations, lateral thinking...

* Members of the profession adhere to a code of ethics.

All airlines - in particular the Q - have a code of ethics, procedures, etc, that cabin crew must follow.

* Members participate in professional organizations.

Flight Safety Organisation, CASA, etc. all conduct cabin safety programmes that involve select crew in assisting in Human Factors planning and training, etc.

* Members are accountable for continuing education and competency.

Well - we must be in order to adapt to the world around us - A380 anyone?

* Professionals publish and communicate their knowledge and advances in their profession.

Qantas Flight Safety Mag, FlightSafety magazine through the ATSB, Cabin Safety Conferences, Cranfield University Human Factors and Cabin Safety training programs, etc.

* A profession develops, evaluates and uses theory as a basis for practice.

Anyone taken a look at the Qantas JetBase in SYD and MEL training centres recently?

* Members of the profession are involved in research.

With a number of worldwide airlines in building on safety and procedural knowledge, to enhance safety and survival in our industry.

Let's not get into an argument about pilots vs. cabin crew - we have enough problems dodging management missiles and passengers problems!