Qantas Warned Of Heathrow Union Battle.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Will post some thoughts.......
Well, the LHR base will be a reality .... that is for sure, but QF has already made many statements saying that it will be on offer to current QF crew on a two year secondment .... but on lower conditions, so most wont take it ( I couldnt live in London on my current wages/ conditions let alone lower ones !!) So based on that, it will be opposed by the FAAA
Now, Jet Black Monaro ( oh.... and Argus the same relates to you ) - sorry luv, but your opionions on QF cabin crew are so emotive, that you obviously have more than just a 'disgruntled customer' opinion.....no normal person would react so vehemently to a group of 8,000 service staff ----- it just isnt a logical reaction...... simple as that
.... and dont even try and claim it is .... no-one with any sense would believe you ...... is it that you were;
declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;
A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;
A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'
I dunno .... but you obviously have some major issues that can't be related to an inflight experience (unless you are insane) .... either way, it matters not....
Jet Black Monaro, you have said several times that we wont get public support for any industrial action over this .... you know nothing (obviously) about industrial action ....
We dont need public support, all we need is public 'knowledge' .... the worst possible scenario for an industrial action is that the public doesn't know about it ...... whether they agree or not is irrelevant .... the public knows about, and have big opinions on either side about this particular issue .... that gets media publicity, and even more public opinion " jobs heading overseas" etc well, it's an emotive issue, and that's all the FAAA needs -------> to keep it in the headlines .... whether the public agrees or not isnt an issue, it's about them knowing about it .... and public debate keeping it alive .......
What about the pilot's dispute ? Well, the pilots were asking for something big and unrealistic, so the public turned on them .... we are asking for things to stay the same, and keep jobs in Australia ---> for Australians .... so the majority public support will be there...... but as I said, we dont need support......... just awareness........ that we are guarenteed
I know that for whatever reason, there seems to be the opinion that all QF Longhaul crew are bad .... we aren't, there are some fantastic crew in QF --- unfortunately we are tarred by a handfull of terrible crew ......... but we have 36,000 employees, some 8,500 are cabin crew .... so there are bound to be some 'bad-eggs'..... we all acknowledge that .... it is up to management to get rid of them ......... the majority do well (considering the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with )
cheers
Well, the LHR base will be a reality .... that is for sure, but QF has already made many statements saying that it will be on offer to current QF crew on a two year secondment .... but on lower conditions, so most wont take it ( I couldnt live in London on my current wages/ conditions let alone lower ones !!) So based on that, it will be opposed by the FAAA
Now, Jet Black Monaro ( oh.... and Argus the same relates to you ) - sorry luv, but your opionions on QF cabin crew are so emotive, that you obviously have more than just a 'disgruntled customer' opinion.....no normal person would react so vehemently to a group of 8,000 service staff ----- it just isnt a logical reaction...... simple as that
.... and dont even try and claim it is .... no-one with any sense would believe you ...... is it that you were;declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;
A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;
A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'
I dunno .... but you obviously have some major issues that can't be related to an inflight experience (unless you are insane) .... either way, it matters not....
Jet Black Monaro, you have said several times that we wont get public support for any industrial action over this .... you know nothing (obviously) about industrial action ....
We dont need public support, all we need is public 'knowledge' .... the worst possible scenario for an industrial action is that the public doesn't know about it ...... whether they agree or not is irrelevant .... the public knows about, and have big opinions on either side about this particular issue .... that gets media publicity, and even more public opinion " jobs heading overseas" etc well, it's an emotive issue, and that's all the FAAA needs -------> to keep it in the headlines .... whether the public agrees or not isnt an issue, it's about them knowing about it .... and public debate keeping it alive .......
What about the pilot's dispute ? Well, the pilots were asking for something big and unrealistic, so the public turned on them .... we are asking for things to stay the same, and keep jobs in Australia ---> for Australians .... so the majority public support will be there...... but as I said, we dont need support......... just awareness........ that we are guarenteed
I know that for whatever reason, there seems to be the opinion that all QF Longhaul crew are bad .... we aren't, there are some fantastic crew in QF --- unfortunately we are tarred by a handfull of terrible crew ......... but we have 36,000 employees, some 8,500 are cabin crew .... so there are bound to be some 'bad-eggs'..... we all acknowledge that .... it is up to management to get rid of them ......... the majority do well (considering the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with )
cheers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q-Tee
.... and Argus the same relates to you ) - sorry luv, but your opinions on QF cabin crew are so emotive, that you obviously have more than just a 'disgruntled customer' opinion.....no normal person would react so vehemently to a group of 8,000 service staff ----- it just isn’t a logical reaction...... simple as that .... and don’t even try and claim it is .... no-one with any sense would believe you ...... is it that you were;
declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;
A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;
A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'
declined by QF HR for a position somewhere in QF ?;
A 'They could never be better than us' ex-Ansett staff memberb ?;
A 'lets jump on 'em' some-obscure-QF-department manager'
But, yet again, in the absence of any reasoned argument to the contrary, you try to bolster your argument by personal attacks and abuse. Sorry 'luv' - nice try but it won't wash.
I have never applied for an HR position with any airline. I am not, nor have I ever been employed by any airline. I have never applied to any airline for any position whatsoever.
I take great exception to having my sanity questioned by some one who apparently lacks even the most basic of professional qualifications to make such a judgment. My career history is set out in my personal profile which is available for you to read - which it appears you haven't taken the trouble to do so before engaging your typing fingers. My background and current vocation is clearly displayed and it is mischievous of you to suggest otherwise. There is an old crew room adage - "Engage brain before opening mouth". I commend it to you.
I am a regular business traveller flying business class for work purposes to North America and the UK, as well as between east coast Australian cities. I make between 15-18 overseas trips per year. In FY 2002/03, I spent almost $A82,000 of my hard earned money on international air travel. In the QANTAS scheme of things, that might be small bickies. But for me, it's a lot of time spent in aeroplanes to get to places where I have to perform to earn my living. Ergo, getting to my destination in good shape is important.
I thus feel qualified to offer a customer’s point of view.
As I've said before, because of the appalling service I, my wife and employees have received in the past, I will not fly with QANTAS, especially on long haul routes.
It's not because of the flight deck crew (some of whom are my former colleagues) or engineering staff. It's because in my experience based over many long haul flights, the standard of QF cabin service is way below what the competition offers.
I work for myself. I stand or fall on the quality of service I provide for my clients, most of whom are satisfied with what I do. If they aren't, I lose their business. Thus, I’m under constant pressure to deliver what my clients want. I personally don’t have a problem with this – it’s what makes the commercial world go round.
When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe and North America, I expect to receive in flight service that represents value for my hard earned money. Unfortunately, when compared to the likes of Cathy, Lauda (Austrian), JAL, Air Canada and even BA, QANTAS doesn't get to first base.
I don't expect forelock tugging servitude from cabin staff. But I do expect basic manners, a customer focused approach to reasonable requests and flight attendant availability throughout the flight/sector. In my experience, QANTAS fails on all three counts. Rather than getting on with the job and maintaining the revenue flow, the Australian based cabin crew are more interested in preserving the Public Service attitude of "rights", "entitlements" and "hard won" employment conditions.
So, I've voted with my feet. I don't want to see Australians out of work. But I'm not prepared to support an organisation that can't deliver what I want for the money I pay, when others can. It's called 'commercial reality' - something that apparently grates with the Australian Services Union and some of its QF members who seem to think that punters like me should be compelled to put my money into its members' benolevence without any corresponding consideration for a job well done. Sorry 'luv', no can do. If others are prepared to do so, then the best of luck to them. But not yours truly - until you and your colleagues lift your game.
we aren't, there are some fantastic crew in QF --- unfortunately we are tarred by a handful of terrible crew ......... but we have 36,000 employees, some 8,500 are cabin crew .... so there are bound to be some 'bad-eggs'..... we all acknowledge that .... it is up to management to get rid of them ......... the majority do well (considering the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with )
... the crap product & crew-levels we have to work with
May I respectfully suggest that, rather than just whinge here in an anonymous forum, you and your colleagues do some research into what actually constitutes Worlds' Best Practice cabin service, as practiced by some QF competitors. When you can then see why I (and others) put our custom elsewhere, you'll be better equipped to negotiate with QF management the necessary changes in work practices and attitudes to match the competition. Who knows, you might even get a pay rise, too.
And then you might see me again luv - and with no apology for the familiarity!
Last edited by Argus; 9th Jun 2004 at 12:13.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
There is a forum for SLF I think, maybe that is more appropriate for your skill and qualification level.
You are right though $82K is very small.
You will be pleased to know though, there are many former solicitors working as cabin crew which is obviously according to you "the most basic professional qualifications". As cabin crew couldnt possibly have a brain or any other life before their flying career.
Argus, I can see why you are not, nor have you ever been employed by any airline.
Best keep studying though for those qualification and one day just one day you might get there.
There is a forum for SLF I think, maybe that is more appropriate for your skill and qualification level.
You are right though $82K is very small.
You will be pleased to know though, there are many former solicitors working as cabin crew which is obviously according to you "the most basic professional qualifications". As cabin crew couldnt possibly have a brain or any other life before their flying career.
Argus, I can see why you are not, nor have you ever been employed by any airline.
Best keep studying though for those qualification and one day just one day you might get there.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gally Hag
What a piece of personal vitriol! I must have struck a raw nerve or two, and hit paydirt. When all else fails, engage 'abuse' mode!
With respect, that's not what I said.
Also with respect, I didn't say that, either.
I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to resort to such an irrelevant remark. Personal denigration is no substitute for relevant facts and adds little to the advancement of the argument.
Likewise, this makes no positive contribution whatsoever to your (weak) argument.
This statement does not surprise me. The Law is a tough profession and a hard taskmaster. Many graduate after a minimum of 5 years Uni slog only to find that either the unrelenting grind at the top end of town or the constant financial and professional pressure of running a small practice is not to their liking. I hope that those of your colleagues who are legally trained are obtaining a greater degree of job satisfaction than you appear to derive from your vocation.
I suggest you look at the discussion on the Cabin Crew thread from enthusiastic Australians keen to obtain FA employment. If you are so jaundiced with your current situation, why don't you look for something else more to your liking, and let some other Australian have a job opportunity. That chip on your shoulder must be very heavy!
... working as cabin crew which is obviously according to you "the most basic professional qualifications".
As cabin crew couldnt possibly have a brain or any other life before their flying career.
Argus, I can see why you are not, nor have you ever been employed by any airline.
Best keep studying though for those qualification and one day just one day you might get there.
You will be pleased to know though, there are many former solicitors working as cabin crew
I suggest you look at the discussion on the Cabin Crew thread from enthusiastic Australians keen to obtain FA employment. If you are so jaundiced with your current situation, why don't you look for something else more to your liking, and let some other Australian have a job opportunity. That chip on your shoulder must be very heavy!
Last edited by Argus; 10th Jun 2004 at 00:43.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aust
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
In my opinion $82K is not small, it's huge.. Actually I think the $5K or more that a family spends on a once or twice in a lifetime holiday is a lot of money (especially to them!) I don't think anyone would realistically dispute that. Have you actually flown Air Canada though? The seat pitch on their 767 is worse than any other I've seen, and the FAs wouldn't give out any more soft drink and definitely no wine as apparently they were trying to save money (I kid you not!) And one of them had been flying for 42yrs! On 6 sectors with AC, the worst I've seen bar none!
Oz Ocker?!?
Surely just a windup? A paid holiday? Maybe you're just jealous of these FAs I think, would you prefer them to just transit and come back.. That would be better wouldn't it. A few years back the pilots trilled 39hr slips in London, and they were hounded down as they were extremely taxing on the body... You don't get a good sleep until the second night anyway... These were popular with the extreme minority...
The FAs aren't asking for a 15% payrise or a massive increase in conditions... All they are trying to ensure is that any future expansion in the company involves them, they keep their jobs in Australia and that they can maintain current conditions for those to follow in the future. Is that too much to ask for?? Isn't that all anyone wants? As happened with Jetconnect, Jetstar etc etc to the QF pilot body... QF L/H FAs.. don't let it happen to you! Good Luck
In my opinion $82K is not small, it's huge.. Actually I think the $5K or more that a family spends on a once or twice in a lifetime holiday is a lot of money (especially to them!) I don't think anyone would realistically dispute that. Have you actually flown Air Canada though? The seat pitch on their 767 is worse than any other I've seen, and the FAs wouldn't give out any more soft drink and definitely no wine as apparently they were trying to save money (I kid you not!) And one of them had been flying for 42yrs! On 6 sectors with AC, the worst I've seen bar none!
Oz Ocker?!?
Surely just a windup? A paid holiday? Maybe you're just jealous of these FAs I think, would you prefer them to just transit and come back.. That would be better wouldn't it. A few years back the pilots trilled 39hr slips in London, and they were hounded down as they were extremely taxing on the body... You don't get a good sleep until the second night anyway... These were popular with the extreme minority...
The FAs aren't asking for a 15% payrise or a massive increase in conditions... All they are trying to ensure is that any future expansion in the company involves them, they keep their jobs in Australia and that they can maintain current conditions for those to follow in the future. Is that too much to ask for?? Isn't that all anyone wants? As happened with Jetconnect, Jetstar etc etc to the QF pilot body... QF L/H FAs.. don't let it happen to you! Good Luck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stickwithit
Thanks for your support.
My wife and I flew Air Canada business class from Sydney to Honolulu in September 2002 as part of a Star Alliance round the world trip that included North American destinations, Manchester and Paris. The aircraft was an elderly B767, but was clean and comfortable nevertheless. Food was average. No shortage of North American wines. Couldn't fault the two male FAs who were very well mannered, had a totally customer focused approach to reasonable requests and were available for the entire flight. I recall writing to Air Canada after the trip and saying so.
Haven't flown with Air Canada since, so I can't give an up to date assessment. However, based on previous experiences, I'd fly AC again.
Totally agree. And that family is fully entitled to receive value for its hard earned $s, too.
Have you actually flown Air Canada though?
Haven't flown with Air Canada since, so I can't give an up to date assessment. However, based on previous experiences, I'd fly AC again.
Actually I think the $5K or more that a family spends on a once or twice in a lifetime holiday is a lot of money (especially to them!) I don't think anyone would realistically dispute that.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Not that it has the slightest thing to do with this thread but......
$82K is just over three and a half years wages for me picking Oranges!
It's all relative I guess.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
$82K is just over three and a half years wages for me picking Oranges!
It's all relative I guess.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, things are getting a little heated here.! I think I may be well qualified to make a comment having been a long term flight attendant/ cabin manager with Ansett , now an ambulance paramedic in his early second year of dedicated univertsity study ,as well as being on the road as a practicing paramedic.
Even when I am fully qualified after 3 years , unless I do heaps of overtime ( usually involving 14 hour night shifts ) my wage will still come up about 15 grand a year light of what I earned as a C/M with Ansett . When I tell my fellow paramedics what I was earning in my previous occupation they are well and truly gobsmacked. To add to that , my Q.F friends were earning more than me!
I am enjoying my life outside the industry and find it interesting to look into it from another perspective.
I have pondered whether or not my new profession is not paid as much as it shoud be , or whether my previous occupation was overpaid , particularly given the qualification and skill base it required. I suspect the latter is the vase
I know that some F/A's out there will rabbit on about the stresses of dealing with the general public, being there for emergency reasons etc etc, but compared to what I am doing now that was bloody easy !
I think that the wage scales at V.B and jet* are probably more indicative of the true worth of the flight attendant role.
Although it seems rough that Q.F is seeking offshore ( read cheaper ) labour overseas , I can fully understand them wanting to do it when the old Q.F wage scales are so high in comparison to other aussie based airlines.
I was also a bit shocked when I last visited my brother in Hong Kong , where his business is now based , that he has stopped using Q.F internationally , though still flies business domestically here with them , because of indifferent and inconsistent service levels. He spends heaps on travel ( as much as you argus)
He is not much to complain much - he did that once and it made no difference . He just quietly took his business elsewhere
I can honestly say that for 20 years at ansett , and I did suspect it at the time , that I was underworked and overpaid . By crikey it was good while it lasted .... I should have realised that nothing that good will last forever !
Just my 2 bob's worth from both sides of the fence!
Even when I am fully qualified after 3 years , unless I do heaps of overtime ( usually involving 14 hour night shifts ) my wage will still come up about 15 grand a year light of what I earned as a C/M with Ansett . When I tell my fellow paramedics what I was earning in my previous occupation they are well and truly gobsmacked. To add to that , my Q.F friends were earning more than me!
I am enjoying my life outside the industry and find it interesting to look into it from another perspective.
I have pondered whether or not my new profession is not paid as much as it shoud be , or whether my previous occupation was overpaid , particularly given the qualification and skill base it required. I suspect the latter is the vase
I know that some F/A's out there will rabbit on about the stresses of dealing with the general public, being there for emergency reasons etc etc, but compared to what I am doing now that was bloody easy !
I think that the wage scales at V.B and jet* are probably more indicative of the true worth of the flight attendant role.
Although it seems rough that Q.F is seeking offshore ( read cheaper ) labour overseas , I can fully understand them wanting to do it when the old Q.F wage scales are so high in comparison to other aussie based airlines.
I was also a bit shocked when I last visited my brother in Hong Kong , where his business is now based , that he has stopped using Q.F internationally , though still flies business domestically here with them , because of indifferent and inconsistent service levels. He spends heaps on travel ( as much as you argus)
He is not much to complain much - he did that once and it made no difference . He just quietly took his business elsewhere
I can honestly say that for 20 years at ansett , and I did suspect it at the time , that I was underworked and overpaid . By crikey it was good while it lasted .... I should have realised that nothing that good will last forever !
Just my 2 bob's worth from both sides of the fence!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sirjfp, your honesty is refreshing.
Sadly the rampant unionists at QF will not see it until it's too late. Their pride will not allow them to admit what you are saying is absolutely correct
I can't wait for the showdown
Sadly the rampant unionists at QF will not see it until it's too late. Their pride will not allow them to admit what you are saying is absolutely correct
I can't wait for the showdown
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aust
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBM
Interesting, so you're DJ cabin crew? Just making that assumption form one of the previous posts. So your reason for wanting to see the FAAA have a showdown is what??? Jealousy? So that you can jump in and do that job for cheaper because that is what you think it's worth?? Don't kid yourself. That is how Virgin and Jetstar have gathered so much momentum and have dragged down the standard and integrity of the aviation industry FOREVER!
Interesting, so you're DJ cabin crew? Just making that assumption form one of the previous posts. So your reason for wanting to see the FAAA have a showdown is what??? Jealousy? So that you can jump in and do that job for cheaper because that is what you think it's worth?? Don't kid yourself. That is how Virgin and Jetstar have gathered so much momentum and have dragged down the standard and integrity of the aviation industry FOREVER!
Sending Jobs overseas isn't the answer
I've travelled on co. flights where cabin crew provided excellent in-flight service and equally, on other flights where it was obvious that the crew were having a bad day and (putting it nicely) were an embarassment. It's essential, nonetheless, to accept that in a service industry, personal matters aren't permitted to affect our frontline performance - it's a luxury we don't have and the concept needs to be embraced by all staff, not just the Flight Attendant community.
Had this been the norm, then the current image problems wouldn't be in question and salary wouldn't be the primary focus.
The job of maintaining a service and company-minded objective however, would be [B]considerably[B] easier for all staff, if the leadership example was consistent and emanated from the top.
For many years now, QF staff have been provided much information on the need for restraint, to be battle-ready for the onslaught of the LCC culture, emerging international airlines and the like. When many others have failed, QF have prospered, earned international awards and managed to come through the darkest period affecting our industry.
Why has this been achievable? Company restructuring alone?
In the end, behind the facts and figures, the answer will mostly lie in the team-spirit of a compliant workforce who's work input:financial reward ratio is considerably less than the results achieved and who collectively and genuinely wish to see the company survive and prosper.
The downstream reality for us however, is that despite responding positively to our senior management's beckonings in recent years and despite realising record earnings as a result of unrewarded work input, we are faced with the threat of more job outsourcing and to non-Aust employees, adding salt to a deep wound. I'd suggest this is an inappropriate way of dealing with staff in the context of recent successes and does go a long way to justifying poor morale.
One could be forgiven for thinking that management's thirst for efficiency and sometimes unjustified change, will never be satisified.
Rather than adopting the conciliatory stance, the take-it-or-else corporate culture of (any) management is short-sighted. The outsourcing of work, creation of new companies to bypass IR issues, unresolved EBA matters - will all ultimately lead to the greater peril of staff morale problems downstream and this is now widespread and a serious problem at QF. I'm sure that I'm not stating anything new.
Financial return to the shareholder has been touted here consistently as the driver of such a drastic step as the need to send more local jobs overseas. As anyone with a small interest in the sharemarket will know, share price often doesn't reflect the performance of an organisation and despite QF's good and improving performance, its share price remains mostly stagnant. I often ponder, to what degree of efficiency change must we (or any publicly-listed company employee for that matter) stoop, in order to satisfy the emotive, irrational and unquenchable share holder appetite?
So it begs the question, in QF's case: will saving $20M by sending these jobs overseas, make any difference to share price?
Regrettably, airlines will remain, in my view, a poor investment in comparison to the other staples, if financial return is the only shareholder motivation. Airlines are however, an essential part of society's structure and must remain, despite share prices and standing.
BCD, Argus, and to other corporate customers, while I don't presume to be in the league of those you've already referred to within the organisation, I'm sorry at your dissatisfaction on the occasions mentioned and hope you'll provide your return business. As you've taken the time to make you opinions known, I ask you to also respect mine and perhaps extend a small degree of understanding to the staff difficulties.
BCD, I sometimes wonder what our boss honestly thinks of his employees so when you next share a beer with our CEO, perhaps you might pose him the question of how he and maybe all others at his end of the job market, justify their financial return vs contribution to their respective company's successes? As I said earlier, sound leadership comes from the top - it's essential to look after your staff if the company expects to succeed - not beat them with a stick after they've correctly responded to your wishes.
Outsourcing of work overseas shouldn't be the first step in the financial solution, if, in fact, the problem is serious enough in the first place, to warrant this sort of handling.
Loss of jobs to Australian workers IS a serious matter and one which is worth defending ahead of share price.
Had this been the norm, then the current image problems wouldn't be in question and salary wouldn't be the primary focus.
The job of maintaining a service and company-minded objective however, would be [B]considerably[B] easier for all staff, if the leadership example was consistent and emanated from the top.
For many years now, QF staff have been provided much information on the need for restraint, to be battle-ready for the onslaught of the LCC culture, emerging international airlines and the like. When many others have failed, QF have prospered, earned international awards and managed to come through the darkest period affecting our industry.
Why has this been achievable? Company restructuring alone?
In the end, behind the facts and figures, the answer will mostly lie in the team-spirit of a compliant workforce who's work input:financial reward ratio is considerably less than the results achieved and who collectively and genuinely wish to see the company survive and prosper.
The downstream reality for us however, is that despite responding positively to our senior management's beckonings in recent years and despite realising record earnings as a result of unrewarded work input, we are faced with the threat of more job outsourcing and to non-Aust employees, adding salt to a deep wound. I'd suggest this is an inappropriate way of dealing with staff in the context of recent successes and does go a long way to justifying poor morale.
One could be forgiven for thinking that management's thirst for efficiency and sometimes unjustified change, will never be satisified.
Rather than adopting the conciliatory stance, the take-it-or-else corporate culture of (any) management is short-sighted. The outsourcing of work, creation of new companies to bypass IR issues, unresolved EBA matters - will all ultimately lead to the greater peril of staff morale problems downstream and this is now widespread and a serious problem at QF. I'm sure that I'm not stating anything new.
Financial return to the shareholder has been touted here consistently as the driver of such a drastic step as the need to send more local jobs overseas. As anyone with a small interest in the sharemarket will know, share price often doesn't reflect the performance of an organisation and despite QF's good and improving performance, its share price remains mostly stagnant. I often ponder, to what degree of efficiency change must we (or any publicly-listed company employee for that matter) stoop, in order to satisfy the emotive, irrational and unquenchable share holder appetite?
So it begs the question, in QF's case: will saving $20M by sending these jobs overseas, make any difference to share price?
Regrettably, airlines will remain, in my view, a poor investment in comparison to the other staples, if financial return is the only shareholder motivation. Airlines are however, an essential part of society's structure and must remain, despite share prices and standing.
BCD, Argus, and to other corporate customers, while I don't presume to be in the league of those you've already referred to within the organisation, I'm sorry at your dissatisfaction on the occasions mentioned and hope you'll provide your return business. As you've taken the time to make you opinions known, I ask you to also respect mine and perhaps extend a small degree of understanding to the staff difficulties.
BCD, I sometimes wonder what our boss honestly thinks of his employees so when you next share a beer with our CEO, perhaps you might pose him the question of how he and maybe all others at his end of the job market, justify their financial return vs contribution to their respective company's successes? As I said earlier, sound leadership comes from the top - it's essential to look after your staff if the company expects to succeed - not beat them with a stick after they've correctly responded to your wishes.
Outsourcing of work overseas shouldn't be the first step in the financial solution, if, in fact, the problem is serious enough in the first place, to warrant this sort of handling.
Loss of jobs to Australian workers IS a serious matter and one which is worth defending ahead of share price.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
sirjfp, your observations may well be correct, however, in spite of the REQUIREMENT to have F/A's onboard, they are also employed in the service industry, where customers of the airline EXPECT some form of inflight "attention".
The air,ines realise this, and charge accordingly, thereby making them ABLE to pay the salaries to F/A's, that they do.
As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service - as compared with QANTAS, which offers 3 classes of travel - that could, perhaps, be viewed as one reason why they are on lesser salaries than their QF, and past AN counterparts.
The air,ines realise this, and charge accordingly, thereby making them ABLE to pay the salaries to F/A's, that they do.
As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service - as compared with QANTAS, which offers 3 classes of travel - that could, perhaps, be viewed as one reason why they are on lesser salaries than their QF, and past AN counterparts.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
I think that the wage scales at V.B and jet* are probably more indicative of the true worth of the flight attendant role.
they are also employed in the service industry....As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service
Keep sh*tting in your own nest guys. You do it so well.
they are also employed in the service industry....As VB and J* F/A's do not provide anything other than a "basic" inflight service
Keep sh*tting in your own nest guys. You do it so well.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my current role, I have absolutely no choice as to whether the FAAA negotiates the contract or not. I do not give that rabble one cent of my money and when the topic comes up at work, I advise others against wasting their dough.
I have previously held many diversified roles under many different types of agreements. I am doing the current role to give myself a break from the usually stressful jobs I usually stumble in. Giving myself a break, so to speak, in a role where I really don't need to think when I go to work.
It is for those around me who view the job as a more longterm prospect that I encourage a good employer/employee relationship as a better option for their long term job security than fostering a good union/unionist relationship.
When I read here people complaining that FA's at QF are in some way hard done by, it just reinforces to me how out of touch they really are with the real world. Just the fact they think the employee collective can dictate to the employer on what are essentially business decisions is quite out of touch.
The only unionists I have met at work have a reputation as pathetic and they have needed the FAAA to save their skin in the past. I flew with an FA recently who has had 40 sick days since XMAS.. and openly admits they are all a fraud, but went on to tell me she's not worried because she's in the union. She also would love to work for QF!!!
It's trash like that the union spends it money on.
I have previously held many diversified roles under many different types of agreements. I am doing the current role to give myself a break from the usually stressful jobs I usually stumble in. Giving myself a break, so to speak, in a role where I really don't need to think when I go to work.
It is for those around me who view the job as a more longterm prospect that I encourage a good employer/employee relationship as a better option for their long term job security than fostering a good union/unionist relationship.
When I read here people complaining that FA's at QF are in some way hard done by, it just reinforces to me how out of touch they really are with the real world. Just the fact they think the employee collective can dictate to the employer on what are essentially business decisions is quite out of touch.
The only unionists I have met at work have a reputation as pathetic and they have needed the FAAA to save their skin in the past. I flew with an FA recently who has had 40 sick days since XMAS.. and openly admits they are all a fraud, but went on to tell me she's not worried because she's in the union. She also would love to work for QF!!!
It's trash like that the union spends it money on.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultra
A balanced post with several valid points.
As I said in an earlier post, 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.
Then there's a company culture which, on any view, is one of distrust between employees and management.
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. 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. 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, and well known.
It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on how to make disenchanted staff redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some financial assistance from QANTAS.
Consequential vacancies are filled by enthusiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; 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, dividends to shareholders increase and hopefully the share price goes up.
And some where in all of the above, there has to be some bridge building between management and staff.
As I said in an earlier post, 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.
Then there's a company culture which, on any view, is one of distrust between employees and management.
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. 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. 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, and well known.
It seems fairly settled that some staff have lost focus. One option open to negotiation might be for both sides to agree on how to make disenchanted staff redundant, qualify for redundancy payments, leave and get an opportunity to retrain for another career with some financial assistance from QANTAS.
Consequential vacancies are filled by enthusiastic and committed promotees and recruits, with some locational and employment flexibility; in flight service improves; 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, dividends to shareholders increase and hopefully the share price goes up.
And some where in all of the above, there has to be some bridge building between management and staff.