Qantas Warned Of Heathrow Union Battle.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It's mighty unfair of you, B C D, to attack all QF F/A's on the basis of what you overheard (albeit perhaps in raised voices, projected aft) between a couple of them having a whinge.
Having worked in Asia (contiuously) for the past 13 years, I can assure you, absolutely, that those smiles you see on the Asian girls' faces do not necessarily indicate that they feel any better toward their company than that of the 2 you felt compelled to report.
Having worked with both, as an overall assessment, I would FAR prefer to have a QF cabin crew in charge of pax in an emergency, than those whom you hold as the shining light.
What Dixon does NOT comprehend, is that although Asian airlines remunerate their cabin staff individually at a lesser level than (say) QF, BA, and numerous American carriers - they make up for it by employing FAR MORE cabin crew per aircraft.
In other words, the workload is divided by a (much) greater number on Asian carriers than it is on QF.
But Dixon wants the best of BOTH worlds........fewer crew AND lower salaries.
Anyone who has worked (anywhere) in Asia will confirm my assertaions - Asia is ALL about keeping wages down - but it's also all about employing as many as possible!
So, moving right along.
What happens when jobs are EXported overseas?
Well, in most cases the people working overseas will NOT be bringing anything BACK to Australia, when they return.
But of course the Geoff Dixons will have made their multi-million dollar fortunes by then, and akin to most other "smart" businessmen aka Christopher Skase, and Rupert Murdoch, will undoubtedly have set themselves up in various tax avoidance/evading scheme companies to protect their wealth gained on the backs of their former employees!
They won't be footing the medical bills.
Nor the unemployment bills. These are going to be passed on to future generations.
That will be left to the minimal workforce employed in Australia, whilst the majority is shipped o/s to give shareholders a 10-20% return on their investments, and the Geoffs an EXTRA couple of million $$$'s [i]per[i] year!
Good one Geoff - Go, Aussie, go!
Having worked in Asia (contiuously) for the past 13 years, I can assure you, absolutely, that those smiles you see on the Asian girls' faces do not necessarily indicate that they feel any better toward their company than that of the 2 you felt compelled to report.
Having worked with both, as an overall assessment, I would FAR prefer to have a QF cabin crew in charge of pax in an emergency, than those whom you hold as the shining light.
What Dixon does NOT comprehend, is that although Asian airlines remunerate their cabin staff individually at a lesser level than (say) QF, BA, and numerous American carriers - they make up for it by employing FAR MORE cabin crew per aircraft.
In other words, the workload is divided by a (much) greater number on Asian carriers than it is on QF.
But Dixon wants the best of BOTH worlds........fewer crew AND lower salaries.
Anyone who has worked (anywhere) in Asia will confirm my assertaions - Asia is ALL about keeping wages down - but it's also all about employing as many as possible!
So, moving right along.
What happens when jobs are EXported overseas?
Well, in most cases the people working overseas will NOT be bringing anything BACK to Australia, when they return.
But of course the Geoff Dixons will have made their multi-million dollar fortunes by then, and akin to most other "smart" businessmen aka Christopher Skase, and Rupert Murdoch, will undoubtedly have set themselves up in various tax avoidance/evading scheme companies to protect their wealth gained on the backs of their former employees!
They won't be footing the medical bills.
Nor the unemployment bills. These are going to be passed on to future generations.
That will be left to the minimal workforce employed in Australia, whilst the majority is shipped o/s to give shareholders a 10-20% return on their investments, and the Geoffs an EXTRA couple of million $$$'s [i]per[i] year!
Good one Geoff - Go, Aussie, go!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
not ANOTHER pedant? And a disingenuous one too!
"Amusing to see that the hysterical anti- Qf longhaul FA brigade have hijacked this thread."
FYI hijack also means to oppropriate, divert, commandeer and seize which of course is what has been done to this thread by you and others in an effort to push your own particular barrow.
Quite common really in these forums, especially with the obsessive and fixated, amongst us.
L2P
-------------------------------------------------------------
I did some quick [simple] calculations on the monetary cost to Australia and its economy of losing 1000 FA jobs overseas.
"If" a long haul FA's taxable income is on average $50 000 they might expect to pay $20 000 or so in income tax.
That equates to a loss of $20 million dollars in revenue for the federal government P.A.
Also, how many jobs are created I wonder by having most of the balance [$30 million P.A.] returned back into our economy through the purchase of various goods and services?
I dont know, but I'm sure its plenty.
The opportunity cost of QF succeeding in its plans?
It would save QF $20 million dollars a year which, when they are predicting an [EBIT] profit next year of $1 billion AUD is peanuts.
For those who cant see past their own self interest, dont for a moment think that your QF airfare will get any cheaper.
The only monetary benefit will be to gd and his executives via more performance bonuses with the big loser, the Australian ecomony and Australian workers.
NONE of the income generated by those 1000 offshore jobs will benefit OUR economy in ANY meaningful way.
Oh, if it makes our friends any happier you are right. I wouldnt get to Harrods anymore but FYI I personally prefer Selfridges but of course for those amongst us able to reason a little more objectively, the issues at hand are just a little bigger than that.
L2P
not ANOTHER pedant? And a disingenuous one too!
"Amusing to see that the hysterical anti- Qf longhaul FA brigade have hijacked this thread."
FYI hijack also means to oppropriate, divert, commandeer and seize which of course is what has been done to this thread by you and others in an effort to push your own particular barrow.
Quite common really in these forums, especially with the obsessive and fixated, amongst us.
L2P
-------------------------------------------------------------
I did some quick [simple] calculations on the monetary cost to Australia and its economy of losing 1000 FA jobs overseas.
"If" a long haul FA's taxable income is on average $50 000 they might expect to pay $20 000 or so in income tax.
That equates to a loss of $20 million dollars in revenue for the federal government P.A.
Also, how many jobs are created I wonder by having most of the balance [$30 million P.A.] returned back into our economy through the purchase of various goods and services?
I dont know, but I'm sure its plenty.
The opportunity cost of QF succeeding in its plans?
It would save QF $20 million dollars a year which, when they are predicting an [EBIT] profit next year of $1 billion AUD is peanuts.
For those who cant see past their own self interest, dont for a moment think that your QF airfare will get any cheaper.
The only monetary benefit will be to gd and his executives via more performance bonuses with the big loser, the Australian ecomony and Australian workers.
NONE of the income generated by those 1000 offshore jobs will benefit OUR economy in ANY meaningful way.
Oh, if it makes our friends any happier you are right. I wouldnt get to Harrods anymore but FYI I personally prefer Selfridges but of course for those amongst us able to reason a little more objectively, the issues at hand are just a little bigger than that.
L2P
Last edited by Left2primary; 1st Jun 2004 at 11:20.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P
FYI hijack also means to oppropriate, divert, commandeer and seize which of course is what has been done to this thread by you and others in an effort to push your own particular barrow.
And you are not seriously suggesting that even in the unlikely event that 1000 jobs were to be lost, that all 1000 people would become permanently unemployed with an ongoing loss to the revenue- or are you? I respectfully suggest that any who may be retrenched would find alternative employment (perhaps not to their liking) that would enable them to both pay tax and contribute to their local economy. It's called 'life in the real world'.
Cap M
You say:
I would FAR prefer to have a QF cabin crew in charge of pax in an emergency, than those whom you hold as the shining light.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
no I am not suggesting QF are contemplating redundancies of any kind because to do so would rightly cause community outrage given the financial position QF it is in.
However, the net effect to our economy of basing those jobs offshore remains the same.
The only differences are that QF avoids causing those "human costs" normally associated with large numbers of redundancies or company failures.
You know the ones [real world?], poverty, divorce, depression, drug abuse and worse.
L2P
no I am not suggesting QF are contemplating redundancies of any kind because to do so would rightly cause community outrage given the financial position QF it is in.
However, the net effect to our economy of basing those jobs offshore remains the same.
The only differences are that QF avoids causing those "human costs" normally associated with large numbers of redundancies or company failures.
You know the ones [real world?], poverty, divorce, depression, drug abuse and worse.
L2P
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having just returned last week from Manila
on QF20, it is with sadness that the cabin service has
fallen since the last time several years ago I travelled
on Qantas, on both QF19 outbound and QF20 inbound
no coffee refills were offered after the meal was served
and I only was able to secure one beer each way, I don't
know if this is a new policy or not, but overall both sectors
were very dissapointing as far as cabin service was concerned.
Unfortunatly QF is the only airline that flys direct BNE-MNL-BNE
once a week.
Wirraway
on QF20, it is with sadness that the cabin service has
fallen since the last time several years ago I travelled
on Qantas, on both QF19 outbound and QF20 inbound
no coffee refills were offered after the meal was served
and I only was able to secure one beer each way, I don't
know if this is a new policy or not, but overall both sectors
were very dissapointing as far as cabin service was concerned.
Unfortunatly QF is the only airline that flys direct BNE-MNL-BNE
once a week.
Wirraway
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD
I have to wonder why you havent taken your business somewhere else, if I had an $11m account with a company and they were as bad as you portray I wouldnt be sticking around nor would my money. Is it because you dont have an $11m account or the service is not quite as bad as you would like everyone to think?
I can assure you it was the top echelon's staff that would have replied to your letter. GD has better things to do with his day than read letters from customers compalining about a couple of f/a's talking. He actually has a whole department that deals with such letters and of course YOU would be a Chairman's Lounge member so you have your own little department that would look after you, not to mention your account manager. I can tell you $11m is a small size corporate account.
Far enough cabin crew should not really bag the company in ear shot of customers. But what world are you living in "a cancer" please give me a break, do my job for half a day and you would realise that the cancer you talk about is in every major company within Australia from senior managers down.
Here we go the age thing is that all you have left, scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Yes I have been wondering about that as well, how does QF do so well when the service is as bad as you say. Its not like we are the only international airline flying out of Australia in fact our international route network is not as good as some other carriers, as you say the service is a lot better on CX, SQ etc but our flights are full and we are expanding plus people have the option of flying the wonderful VB domestically but still choose QF why? Does that mean you are in the minority?
You wouldnt be talking about yourself would you BCD when you say you know others that are more deserving of my job than me? Its all coming together now, keep dreaming into your beer can as thats as close you will ever get to my job!!
I have to wonder why you havent taken your business somewhere else, if I had an $11m account with a company and they were as bad as you portray I wouldnt be sticking around nor would my money. Is it because you dont have an $11m account or the service is not quite as bad as you would like everyone to think?
I can assure you it was the top echelon's staff that would have replied to your letter. GD has better things to do with his day than read letters from customers compalining about a couple of f/a's talking. He actually has a whole department that deals with such letters and of course YOU would be a Chairman's Lounge member so you have your own little department that would look after you, not to mention your account manager. I can tell you $11m is a small size corporate account.
Far enough cabin crew should not really bag the company in ear shot of customers. But what world are you living in "a cancer" please give me a break, do my job for half a day and you would realise that the cancer you talk about is in every major company within Australia from senior managers down.
Here we go the age thing is that all you have left, scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Yes I have been wondering about that as well, how does QF do so well when the service is as bad as you say. Its not like we are the only international airline flying out of Australia in fact our international route network is not as good as some other carriers, as you say the service is a lot better on CX, SQ etc but our flights are full and we are expanding plus people have the option of flying the wonderful VB domestically but still choose QF why? Does that mean you are in the minority?
You wouldnt be talking about yourself would you BCD when you say you know others that are more deserving of my job than me? Its all coming together now, keep dreaming into your beer can as thats as close you will ever get to my job!!
Last edited by GalleyHag; 1st Jun 2004 at 14:37.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aust
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD,
Are you English? Because I'm as sure as hell that noone would sit and whinge and make idle threats like that just to try and puff up your insecure little ego. If Qantas service is so bad why don't you move to another airline that has 19 staff on a jumbo (like SQ) instead of the 14 QF has )another GD idea), then you might be getting somewhere... Although taking off into concrete trucks, or writing off 747s in Auckland become a problem then. I'm sure Korean make a nice coffee and would smile for you??? Or you'd have nothing to whinge about then would you.. Maybe the staff in QF are whinging (just like you seem to be) for legitimate reasons.. or do you think that they are some superbreed of human that complain and whinge and are selfish as soon as they start in Qantas.. they are normal people after all.
Argus, you done 52 hours of flying in 9 days???.. thats 20 hrs worth of time zones... that doesn't include transport time etc etc, how many hours do you work in a week anyway Argus?? Not as easy as it sounds...
BTW I'm not a FA, but I think you uneducated people hiding behind false little names and bullsh~t little stories need to look at yourselves before you wish 1000 Australian jobs overseas...
GD and his team need to realise that you can't treat people like crap and expect them to be nice to the poeple all day every day.... Although most of them are... Cheers
Are you English? Because I'm as sure as hell that noone would sit and whinge and make idle threats like that just to try and puff up your insecure little ego. If Qantas service is so bad why don't you move to another airline that has 19 staff on a jumbo (like SQ) instead of the 14 QF has )another GD idea), then you might be getting somewhere... Although taking off into concrete trucks, or writing off 747s in Auckland become a problem then. I'm sure Korean make a nice coffee and would smile for you??? Or you'd have nothing to whinge about then would you.. Maybe the staff in QF are whinging (just like you seem to be) for legitimate reasons.. or do you think that they are some superbreed of human that complain and whinge and are selfish as soon as they start in Qantas.. they are normal people after all.
Argus, you done 52 hours of flying in 9 days???.. thats 20 hrs worth of time zones... that doesn't include transport time etc etc, how many hours do you work in a week anyway Argus?? Not as easy as it sounds...
BTW I'm not a FA, but I think you uneducated people hiding behind false little names and bullsh~t little stories need to look at yourselves before you wish 1000 Australian jobs overseas...
GD and his team need to realise that you can't treat people like crap and expect them to be nice to the poeple all day every day.... Although most of them are... Cheers
With the extra slots into EGLL, wouldn't QF be creating jobs OS rather than exporting jobs?
l suspect that no-one will be made redundant in any department as a result of this episode.
How many hundreds if not thousands do QF have employed OS any how? Most of those jobs were likely created for the continued safe operation of what is a profitable airline. Do these people not contribute to your continued status of being in a secure job with good pay? How many Ozzies are amoungst that group?
It's not as bad as you make out, besides look on the bright side, less time away from home on the soon-to-be-lost London flights
And whats with all the obscure words anyway?
Signed the disingenuous pedant
AKA halas
l suspect that no-one will be made redundant in any department as a result of this episode.
How many hundreds if not thousands do QF have employed OS any how? Most of those jobs were likely created for the continued safe operation of what is a profitable airline. Do these people not contribute to your continued status of being in a secure job with good pay? How many Ozzies are amoungst that group?
It's not as bad as you make out, besides look on the bright side, less time away from home on the soon-to-be-lost London flights
And whats with all the obscure words anyway?
Signed the disingenuous pedant
AKA halas
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stickwithit
Nice try - but your own personal profile is hardly expansive, either. People who live in glass houses?
I don't think any poster on this thread would willingly wish '1000 Australian jobs overseas', certainly not me. But that doesn't alter the fact that many people are dissatisfied with the standard of cabin service that Qantas provides. It's that dissatisfaction that's being expressed here. You appear to be saying that expressing such a view will lead to 1000 jobs being lost. With great respect, there's a link or two missing in your logic.
Dissatisfaction with QF cabin service is not the prerogative of those of us who have said so here. Skytrax also publishes passenger opinions here If you read through the 40 odd posts placed over the last six months, you'll note that the unfavourable comments outnumber the positives by more than 2:1.
What I'd much prefer to see is a demonstrated improvement in QF cabin service. If this eventuated, I'd willingly return. But on current performance, I'm not prepared to risk $5000 on a long haul business class fare only to be again disappointed.
And BTW, as a small businessperson and employer, I work around 60 hours per week, including weekends - some 50 hours attending to clients (not all face to face) and the balance being a boss and tax collector. If I had a client that was worth $11m per annum (I wish), I'd be making every effort to retain his business!
BTW I'm not a FA, but I think you uneducated people hiding behind false little names and bullsh~t little stories need to look at yourselves before you wish 1000 Australian jobs overseas...
I don't think any poster on this thread would willingly wish '1000 Australian jobs overseas', certainly not me. But that doesn't alter the fact that many people are dissatisfied with the standard of cabin service that Qantas provides. It's that dissatisfaction that's being expressed here. You appear to be saying that expressing such a view will lead to 1000 jobs being lost. With great respect, there's a link or two missing in your logic.
Dissatisfaction with QF cabin service is not the prerogative of those of us who have said so here. Skytrax also publishes passenger opinions here If you read through the 40 odd posts placed over the last six months, you'll note that the unfavourable comments outnumber the positives by more than 2:1.
What I'd much prefer to see is a demonstrated improvement in QF cabin service. If this eventuated, I'd willingly return. But on current performance, I'm not prepared to risk $5000 on a long haul business class fare only to be again disappointed.
And BTW, as a small businessperson and employer, I work around 60 hours per week, including weekends - some 50 hours attending to clients (not all face to face) and the balance being a boss and tax collector. If I had a client that was worth $11m per annum (I wish), I'd be making every effort to retain his business!
Last edited by Argus; 2nd Jun 2004 at 00:03.
I must admit, one of my continual disappointments is hearing the groan from the FAs on the bus when they hear we've got a full aeroplane. This attitude seems indicative of some of the problems causing some of the posts on this topic.
At the end of the day, these are the people that pay our salaries and the more we can have of them the better!! Customers are not an irrelevance, and I'm sure some of them are bloody hard work, but that said, if people don't like working in the service industry - and it appears a lot don't - take the other option!
At the end of the day, these are the people that pay our salaries and the more we can have of them the better!! Customers are not an irrelevance, and I'm sure some of them are bloody hard work, but that said, if people don't like working in the service industry - and it appears a lot don't - take the other option!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately when looking from the outside, a few bad apples quite often gives the impression that the whole barrel is rotten.
What should be of concern here is that Ozzie jobs are being exported. A few pilots with Jet Connect, a large number (proposed) of flight attendants now, what next.........perhaps the whole Airline will be manned by cheap labour from Asia and Africa. (except for the board!)
The Airline's morale is pretty much at rock bottom and the only concern that GD has is how to increase profit!
What should be of concern here is that Ozzie jobs are being exported. A few pilots with Jet Connect, a large number (proposed) of flight attendants now, what next.........perhaps the whole Airline will be manned by cheap labour from Asia and Africa. (except for the board!)
The Airline's morale is pretty much at rock bottom and the only concern that GD has is how to increase profit!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we dwell a pause of two marching paces, the real issue here is the age old competing interest of capital and labour.
QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.
One the other side are the unions. Their role is to protect and, if possible enhance the employment conditions of their members. Some award conditions stretch back to the Public Service era. In the eyes of management, these are troublesome and should be removed.
QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. But to achieve its commercial objective, it can either conclude individual agreements with each FA or reach some form of accommodation with the union. In this case, it's probably the latter although doubtless QANTAS would wish for the former if at all possible.
QANTAS has fired a first salvo. The union response is predictable enough - no way. It's like ballroom dancing - each side knows the steps. So negotiations start. Each side has some ambit in its various claims. Over a period of time there will be some posturing from both sides before an agreement is reached. Each side has something to lose and something to gain. Skilled negotiators on both sides will probe and push until a compromise is reached. All industrial disputes are settled eventually - the amount of time in dispute being directly proportional to the hairy chestedness of the protagonists.
That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. My own views are on this thread. Others have pointed out that without passengers, there’s no revenue. It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on terms under which such staff might retrain and move on. The Commonwealth Public Service had a term for this process - enlivenment. Who knows, there might even be the prospect of a 'win win' - disenchanted staff become redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some assistance from QANTAS; any consequential vacancies are filled by enthousiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; Argus and other ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure and dividends to shareholders increase.
Rarely is such advice provided gratis!
QANTAS is now a publicly listed company. Its directors have numerous commercial duties, one of which is to make a profit to return to shareholders.
One the other side are the unions. Their role is to protect and, if possible enhance the employment conditions of their members. Some award conditions stretch back to the Public Service era. In the eyes of management, these are troublesome and should be removed.
QANTAS sees an opportunity to improve its bottom line. It is commercially obliged to pursue that opportunity. Part of that opportunity involves a restructure of some of its workforce. But to achieve its commercial objective, it can either conclude individual agreements with each FA or reach some form of accommodation with the union. In this case, it's probably the latter although doubtless QANTAS would wish for the former if at all possible.
QANTAS has fired a first salvo. The union response is predictable enough - no way. It's like ballroom dancing - each side knows the steps. So negotiations start. Each side has some ambit in its various claims. Over a period of time there will be some posturing from both sides before an agreement is reached. Each side has something to lose and something to gain. Skilled negotiators on both sides will probe and push until a compromise is reached. All industrial disputes are settled eventually - the amount of time in dispute being directly proportional to the hairy chestedness of the protagonists.
That doesn’t mean that customer service is irrelevant. My own views are on this thread. Others have pointed out that without passengers, there’s no revenue. It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on terms under which such staff might retrain and move on. The Commonwealth Public Service had a term for this process - enlivenment. Who knows, there might even be the prospect of a 'win win' - disenchanted staff become redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some assistance from QANTAS; any consequential vacancies are filled by enthousiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; Argus and other ex customers return to the fold; new customers are attracted because of the improved cabin service; load factors increase, profits go up, jobs become more secure and dividends to shareholders increase.
Rarely is such advice provided gratis!
Last edited by Argus; 2nd Jun 2004 at 05:41.
Evertonian
Although taking off into concrete trucks, or writing off 747s in Auckland become a problem then.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time I open the news or turn on the radio, I am hearing something new from JD about this issue. He is selling it to the public and getting lots of air time.
It is a snowball gaining speed and size and will flatten all attempts you make to stop it. I absolutely agree with a previous poster that the FAAA (read the collective of QF longhaul FA's) has priced their members out of a job.
Maybe you as a union member should go to the FAAA and ask why are you in this position, what has the FAAA done in the past 20 years to ensure they grow with QF together, particularly in the areas of efficiency gains and world's best practise? Ask the union were all the short term wins over the years really worth it now you face this looming long term reality? Were all those "don't do this and don't do that" notices from the FAAA appropriate now that you face the very real danger of losing your jobs? The union represents you, yet sitting on the outside I see you all being blindly led to slaughter.
Whilst I mentioned before that the public will not support you, I also forgot to mention the the union movement most likely won't as well.
Bring on the revolution!
It is a snowball gaining speed and size and will flatten all attempts you make to stop it. I absolutely agree with a previous poster that the FAAA (read the collective of QF longhaul FA's) has priced their members out of a job.
Maybe you as a union member should go to the FAAA and ask why are you in this position, what has the FAAA done in the past 20 years to ensure they grow with QF together, particularly in the areas of efficiency gains and world's best practise? Ask the union were all the short term wins over the years really worth it now you face this looming long term reality? Were all those "don't do this and don't do that" notices from the FAAA appropriate now that you face the very real danger of losing your jobs? The union represents you, yet sitting on the outside I see you all being blindly led to slaughter.
Whilst I mentioned before that the public will not support you, I also forgot to mention the the union movement most likely won't as well.
Bring on the revolution!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jbm,
its actually gd.
You nothing of what you speak.
gd may be doing his best by having his paid shock jocks Alan Jones and John Laws spruik the benefits to QF, but at the end of the day the issues at hand are the prospect of 1000 jobs being exported overseas.
I wouldnt if I were you, predict the opinion of the general public based on your own predudices.
The public are not as bitter and twisted as you.
L2P
its actually gd.
You nothing of what you speak.
gd may be doing his best by having his paid shock jocks Alan Jones and John Laws spruik the benefits to QF, but at the end of the day the issues at hand are the prospect of 1000 jobs being exported overseas.
I wouldnt if I were you, predict the opinion of the general public based on your own predudices.
The public are not as bitter and twisted as you.
L2P
Last edited by Left2primary; 2nd Jun 2004 at 04:38.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stickwithit, L2P and GalleyHag.
With that sort of attitude you each display in criticising my ego or personality without knowing myself, or being peeved at the fact that I can solicit a personal response from your CEO makes me think you are each being bloody minded and unwilling to accept the facts.
Your service recently has gone down hill and you dont want to accept it.
I complain about a few instances of unprofessional behaviour amongst your ranks and you three get all hot and bothered about both my opinion as well as the truth.
You question my motives and complain about my personality without having met or confronted myself.
My organisation spends alot of time in the air with QF and having grown up with your CEO in country NSW means when a question is asked it is addressed personally.
The fact that he is able to do this is testimony to the man and his wish to want to keep business with his company - business which you each benefit from.
When the contract is due for renewal we will think carefully about the choice we make.
The rantings of GH,L2P and Stickwithit dont help yourselves or your fellow workers who hopefully are still able to retain a "service attitude".
No people, I dont expect to be pampered but expect a level of service commensurate with the class of ticket and level of service both expected and provided by not only QF itself, but your fellow airlines.
No - I dont want to see jobs go offshore but if it means that by doing so Australians can keep their jobs here then I'm sure even your union will accept this.
After all, was it not your union that approved offshore contract workers from Thailand some years back??
Going to London via Bangok has been a pleasure upstairs being served by these guys and young girls.
My point is that although the thought at the moment is both distasteful and unappealing, sooner or later this will become a reality.
Mr Dixon has not only a responsibility to the employees but also to the share holders by growing the business that Qantas has become.
Your CEO has demonstrated his shrewd ability to both run and expand the airline over the most perilous periods of aviation history in modern times in Australia.
His counterparts havent faired so well and many are on the scrap heap as we speak (Air Canada close to going under as an one of many examples).
Other US airlines are in serious trouble still - and 9/11 was only partly responsible.
European airlines such as Alitalia and Olympic have their serious woes also.
I believe that in the near future your unions will see this also as they not only opened the door for this to happen, but know the cost of industrial action and its devestating effects on all other QS staff.
To strike accordingly would give alot of ammo for more contract workers.
If there was another way to employ more Australians as well as expand the airline to the best of its potential then I'm sure this avenue would have been addressed.
Lets sit on our hands and see what happens.
With that sort of attitude you each display in criticising my ego or personality without knowing myself, or being peeved at the fact that I can solicit a personal response from your CEO makes me think you are each being bloody minded and unwilling to accept the facts.
Your service recently has gone down hill and you dont want to accept it.
I complain about a few instances of unprofessional behaviour amongst your ranks and you three get all hot and bothered about both my opinion as well as the truth.
You question my motives and complain about my personality without having met or confronted myself.
My organisation spends alot of time in the air with QF and having grown up with your CEO in country NSW means when a question is asked it is addressed personally.
The fact that he is able to do this is testimony to the man and his wish to want to keep business with his company - business which you each benefit from.
When the contract is due for renewal we will think carefully about the choice we make.
The rantings of GH,L2P and Stickwithit dont help yourselves or your fellow workers who hopefully are still able to retain a "service attitude".
No people, I dont expect to be pampered but expect a level of service commensurate with the class of ticket and level of service both expected and provided by not only QF itself, but your fellow airlines.
No - I dont want to see jobs go offshore but if it means that by doing so Australians can keep their jobs here then I'm sure even your union will accept this.
After all, was it not your union that approved offshore contract workers from Thailand some years back??
Going to London via Bangok has been a pleasure upstairs being served by these guys and young girls.
My point is that although the thought at the moment is both distasteful and unappealing, sooner or later this will become a reality.
Mr Dixon has not only a responsibility to the employees but also to the share holders by growing the business that Qantas has become.
Your CEO has demonstrated his shrewd ability to both run and expand the airline over the most perilous periods of aviation history in modern times in Australia.
His counterparts havent faired so well and many are on the scrap heap as we speak (Air Canada close to going under as an one of many examples).
Other US airlines are in serious trouble still - and 9/11 was only partly responsible.
European airlines such as Alitalia and Olympic have their serious woes also.
I believe that in the near future your unions will see this also as they not only opened the door for this to happen, but know the cost of industrial action and its devestating effects on all other QS staff.
To strike accordingly would give alot of ammo for more contract workers.
If there was another way to employ more Australians as well as expand the airline to the best of its potential then I'm sure this avenue would have been addressed.
Lets sit on our hands and see what happens.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here here Beer Can D.
I know of a few ex Ansett Cabin Managers as well as line F/A's that really know how hard it is making a living in the real world.
Having only a First Aid certificate makes it hard to compete out there.
Others that were nurses as well as school teachers (with university degrees) have to work literally twice as hard for much less pay.
Left 2 Primary and Galleyhag should take heed.
The world is really a big place and the competition extreme.
Not joyful words when your union is pricing themselves into oblivion.
I know of a few ex Ansett Cabin Managers as well as line F/A's that really know how hard it is making a living in the real world.
Having only a First Aid certificate makes it hard to compete out there.
Others that were nurses as well as school teachers (with university degrees) have to work literally twice as hard for much less pay.
Left 2 Primary and Galleyhag should take heed.
The world is really a big place and the competition extreme.
Not joyful words when your union is pricing themselves into oblivion.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to agree with the last 3 postings people.
Tunguska has made a very good point of comparing F/A salaries to those professionals with university qualifications.
Have to say I agree also that the FAAA have all but priced themselves out of the market when you compare their salaries with less payed and better educated professionals.
The FAAA will do what it always does, huff, puff and threaten to blow the house down.
In the end they will roll over onto their backs like my dog with an itchy stomach.
As someone keenly pointed out the FAAA opened the door to this some years back.
They can now reap the rewards.
Tunguska has made a very good point of comparing F/A salaries to those professionals with university qualifications.
Have to say I agree also that the FAAA have all but priced themselves out of the market when you compare their salaries with less payed and better educated professionals.
The FAAA will do what it always does, huff, puff and threaten to blow the house down.
In the end they will roll over onto their backs like my dog with an itchy stomach.
As someone keenly pointed out the FAAA opened the door to this some years back.
They can now reap the rewards.
Evertonian
Leopards find it hard to change their spots, chaps. It will take a while for the FAAA & it's members to see the real world.
I can recall the failed Tesna & Ansett mark 2 fiasco. Some crew who were still in La-La land actually demanded taxis when they were called out for duty! You could call it "denial", but I think some people actually believed the lies they'd been fed about their value to the company.
Having said that, the majority of AN's crews that I personally dealt with were terrific & I'd be happy to work with them again. I've yet to see their equal at QF. Perhaps because I'm a bit more discerning when choosing who to fly with?
I can recall the failed Tesna & Ansett mark 2 fiasco. Some crew who were still in La-La land actually demanded taxis when they were called out for duty! You could call it "denial", but I think some people actually believed the lies they'd been fed about their value to the company.
Having said that, the majority of AN's crews that I personally dealt with were terrific & I'd be happy to work with them again. I've yet to see their equal at QF. Perhaps because I'm a bit more discerning when choosing who to fly with?