Qantas Warned Of Heathrow Union Battle.
Persona non grata
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Warned Of Heathrow Union Battle.
Qantas warned of Heathrow union battle
Qantas could face widespread industrial action at Heathrow Airport if it pushes ahead with plans to base more of its 35,000-strong workforce overseas without the support of Australian unions, the London-based International Transport Workers Federation warned yesterday.
Amid revelations of Qantas cost-cutting plans to base 25 per cent of international flight attendants overseas, the federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, said Qantas could face an industrial campaign of the same magnitude as action that crippled British Airways in July 1997.
The Flight Attendants Association of Australia has already warned cabin crew will strike in December if Qantas pushes to break the existing cap of 370 overseas flight crew based in Auckland and Bangkok.
Internal documents obtained by the Herald this week reveal plans to set up a London crew base with 400 flight attendants, and build offshore crew numbers to about 840.
"We will do everything that we can to support them [the Australian union]," Mr Enright said.
British Airways lost tens of millions of pounds during its 1997 dispute with flight attendants. The International Transport Workers Federation helped co-ordinate a widespread picketing and publicity campaign against the airline.
"Qantas needs to understand that the problem doesn't come on the day the dispute starts. The problem comes when the public is aware there is going to be a dispute," Mr Enright said.
But he was not against the plans as long as Qantas had the approval of Australian unions. United Airlines had set up an 800-strong crew base at Heathrow in 1991, he noted.
Air New Zealand approached the international union before setting up its crew base at Heathrow five years ago.
The head of Air New Zealand's international division, Ed Sims, conceded wages were much higher in Britain but said hotel bills had been cut.
"Having crew domiciled in London makes good sense financially. And from a customer service perspective having British crew is not a bad thing when 70 per cent of the customers you fly from Heathrow are British," Mr Sims said.
Air New Zealand's Heathrow-based crews fly to Los Angeles, where they hand over to Auckland-based crews.
The Australian union says the average Qantas flight attendant is rested for three days in Singapore or Bangkok and two days in London on a 52-hour return trip to London.
The head of the US-based Association of Flight Attendants at Heathrow, Kevin Creighan, suspects the Qantas plan is aimed not only at reducing costs but also at weakening the union base in Australia. "Hiring 400 people on temporary non-unionised agreements is just a way to get rid of unionised staff in Sydney," said Mr Creighan, who relocated to Britain as a United Airlines flight attendant in 1991.
"They don't care if people have 15 years' experience or 15 minutes' experience. All they care about is getting staff on board with half the costs."
Qantas could face widespread industrial action at Heathrow Airport if it pushes ahead with plans to base more of its 35,000-strong workforce overseas without the support of Australian unions, the London-based International Transport Workers Federation warned yesterday.
Amid revelations of Qantas cost-cutting plans to base 25 per cent of international flight attendants overseas, the federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, said Qantas could face an industrial campaign of the same magnitude as action that crippled British Airways in July 1997.
The Flight Attendants Association of Australia has already warned cabin crew will strike in December if Qantas pushes to break the existing cap of 370 overseas flight crew based in Auckland and Bangkok.
Internal documents obtained by the Herald this week reveal plans to set up a London crew base with 400 flight attendants, and build offshore crew numbers to about 840.
"We will do everything that we can to support them [the Australian union]," Mr Enright said.
British Airways lost tens of millions of pounds during its 1997 dispute with flight attendants. The International Transport Workers Federation helped co-ordinate a widespread picketing and publicity campaign against the airline.
"Qantas needs to understand that the problem doesn't come on the day the dispute starts. The problem comes when the public is aware there is going to be a dispute," Mr Enright said.
But he was not against the plans as long as Qantas had the approval of Australian unions. United Airlines had set up an 800-strong crew base at Heathrow in 1991, he noted.
Air New Zealand approached the international union before setting up its crew base at Heathrow five years ago.
The head of Air New Zealand's international division, Ed Sims, conceded wages were much higher in Britain but said hotel bills had been cut.
"Having crew domiciled in London makes good sense financially. And from a customer service perspective having British crew is not a bad thing when 70 per cent of the customers you fly from Heathrow are British," Mr Sims said.
Air New Zealand's Heathrow-based crews fly to Los Angeles, where they hand over to Auckland-based crews.
The Australian union says the average Qantas flight attendant is rested for three days in Singapore or Bangkok and two days in London on a 52-hour return trip to London.
The head of the US-based Association of Flight Attendants at Heathrow, Kevin Creighan, suspects the Qantas plan is aimed not only at reducing costs but also at weakening the union base in Australia. "Hiring 400 people on temporary non-unionised agreements is just a way to get rid of unionised staff in Sydney," said Mr Creighan, who relocated to Britain as a United Airlines flight attendant in 1991.
"They don't care if people have 15 years' experience or 15 minutes' experience. All they care about is getting staff on board with half the costs."
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who do these Flt Attendant Union types think they are????
Do you honestly expected an offshore union to support such a ridiculous notion if staff are going to be based in London?
Putting money into the British economy and giving people a job seems something that the poms would not really want to strike over.
Sounds like unionistic crap and rhetoric to me.
How can these FAAA idiots actually be taken seriously if they tout this rubbish???
Do you honestly expected an offshore union to support such a ridiculous notion if staff are going to be based in London?
Putting money into the British economy and giving people a job seems something that the poms would not really want to strike over.
Sounds like unionistic crap and rhetoric to me.
How can these FAAA idiots actually be taken seriously if they tout this rubbish???
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD,
so you are saying that you support QF's move to hire 1000 FA's offshore for no other reason than to boost the bottom line of what is already the worlds most profitable airline?
Or is your post just another one of your tragic anti FA rantings?
L2P
so you are saying that you support QF's move to hire 1000 FA's offshore for no other reason than to boost the bottom line of what is already the worlds most profitable airline?
Or is your post just another one of your tragic anti FA rantings?
L2P
Last edited by Left2primary; 30th May 2004 at 02:04.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P - my answer is yes.
Having flown QF continually for the last 22 years amongst others I have been able to make comparisons.
Airlines have a very slim operating margin and QF is under intense and serious competition globally.
Firstly some F/A's would have the opportunity of being based in places such as London and I believe many would take up the opportunity which you seem keen to deny them.
I imagine you will just go spare not being able to shop at Harrod's quite so often!
Secondly having crew based internationally works well for other airlines.
Emirates has crews from all over the world, CX/ANA/SQ/Gulf Air and BA just to name a few.
Flew ANA recently from London to Tokyo Narita with a large mix of European and Japanese girls.
They love their job and it really showed - even after an 11 hour flight.
It certainly beats the last time I flew QF internationally and sat within earshot of 2 F/A's whinging incessantly about QF whilst strapped in for take-off/landing.
Bloody unprofessional as well as an embarassment.
I have 2 letters from both John Borghetti and Geoff Dixon apologising profusely for this indiscretion.
Unfortunately its not the only occurrence.
At the other end of the spectrum the domestic QF crew seem hard working, friendlier and more efficient.
Haven't heard them gripe so far but seeing them smile and laugh is a really big plus.
The world around us is changing and fortunately your CEO sees that and is willing to make change - unlike yourself or your union.
What does it take to make you realise that passengers dont give a tinkers-cuss where the F/A 's are from, but if they get good service and are able to communicate then they walk away happy, will fly with you again and you get to keep your job.
Hell knows, the company may even be profitable again and can expand to the advantage of everyone!!!
Having flown QF continually for the last 22 years amongst others I have been able to make comparisons.
Airlines have a very slim operating margin and QF is under intense and serious competition globally.
Firstly some F/A's would have the opportunity of being based in places such as London and I believe many would take up the opportunity which you seem keen to deny them.
I imagine you will just go spare not being able to shop at Harrod's quite so often!
Secondly having crew based internationally works well for other airlines.
Emirates has crews from all over the world, CX/ANA/SQ/Gulf Air and BA just to name a few.
Flew ANA recently from London to Tokyo Narita with a large mix of European and Japanese girls.
They love their job and it really showed - even after an 11 hour flight.
It certainly beats the last time I flew QF internationally and sat within earshot of 2 F/A's whinging incessantly about QF whilst strapped in for take-off/landing.
Bloody unprofessional as well as an embarassment.
I have 2 letters from both John Borghetti and Geoff Dixon apologising profusely for this indiscretion.
Unfortunately its not the only occurrence.
At the other end of the spectrum the domestic QF crew seem hard working, friendlier and more efficient.
Haven't heard them gripe so far but seeing them smile and laugh is a really big plus.
The world around us is changing and fortunately your CEO sees that and is willing to make change - unlike yourself or your union.
What does it take to make you realise that passengers dont give a tinkers-cuss where the F/A 's are from, but if they get good service and are able to communicate then they walk away happy, will fly with you again and you get to keep your job.
Hell knows, the company may even be profitable again and can expand to the advantage of everyone!!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD
I always wondered what our CEO does all day now I know, he writes letters apologising for a couple of flight attendants talking and in ear shot of a passenger no less, that’s value for the millions he is paid each year. So sorry you were put through such an ordeal BCD.
It is clear you know very little about QF Flight Attendants or the repercussions of overseas based crew on Australian based crew and future QF Flight Attendants.
Emirates and other Middle Eastern airlines do have multinational crew and so does QF maybe not to the extent of Emirates though. However all are based in the Middle East and are employed by their respective airlines and all are paid the same unlike QF who employ overseas based crew through a labour hire company at lower rates of pay to the detriment of Australian based crew.
It’s sad that just because you have had bad experiences with QF that you would like to see 1000 jobs go overseas.
I always wondered what our CEO does all day now I know, he writes letters apologising for a couple of flight attendants talking and in ear shot of a passenger no less, that’s value for the millions he is paid each year. So sorry you were put through such an ordeal BCD.
It is clear you know very little about QF Flight Attendants or the repercussions of overseas based crew on Australian based crew and future QF Flight Attendants.
Emirates and other Middle Eastern airlines do have multinational crew and so does QF maybe not to the extent of Emirates though. However all are based in the Middle East and are employed by their respective airlines and all are paid the same unlike QF who employ overseas based crew through a labour hire company at lower rates of pay to the detriment of Australian based crew.
It’s sad that just because you have had bad experiences with QF that you would like to see 1000 jobs go overseas.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galley Hag.
Perhaps you would prefer my company take its contract worth approx. $11m anually to someone else?
Perhaps VB domestically and CX/SQ for International Services???
Would that suit you?
Thank goodness your top echelon of management appreciate our business and have replied personally.
You should be so glad Galley Hag because he kept a few of you in work.
It came pretty close to having your contract terminated at its expiration but intervention by those that care (including those two names mentioned) prevented this.
Thank them personally one day because according to yourself they obviously have better things to do with their time.
You carry on as if your fellow F/A compatriots complaining about your company within earshot of pax is either the norm or is justified GH.
Well I'll tell you it is not.
It denigrates the level of professionalism some of your co-workers wish to promote and have worked hard at doing.
If you wish to know I wrote the letter after the second occurrence.
People like this are a threat to everyone including yourself Frauline Hag.
In most organisations it would be treated like a cancer and cut out before it spreads.
You obviously think otherwise.
In my opinion give the jobs to someone more deserving and willing to work harder than some young (<50 yo in the case of QF) thing that carries on as if the world revolves around themselves whilst giving mediocre service.
Its about time your union looked at promoting excellence rather than supporting mediocrity.
Yes I understand the union has to look after all of its members, even the lowest common denominator I talk about here.
No - Qantas is not the most profitable airline in the world by far but what does amaze me is that it has gotten on for so long with the level of service provided by some - not most I trust.
Galley Hag - your response above only justifies the fact that you are not deserving of the conditions and priviledges your job provides, but I know many others that are.
Perhaps you would prefer my company take its contract worth approx. $11m anually to someone else?
Perhaps VB domestically and CX/SQ for International Services???
Would that suit you?
Thank goodness your top echelon of management appreciate our business and have replied personally.
You should be so glad Galley Hag because he kept a few of you in work.
It came pretty close to having your contract terminated at its expiration but intervention by those that care (including those two names mentioned) prevented this.
Thank them personally one day because according to yourself they obviously have better things to do with their time.
You carry on as if your fellow F/A compatriots complaining about your company within earshot of pax is either the norm or is justified GH.
Well I'll tell you it is not.
It denigrates the level of professionalism some of your co-workers wish to promote and have worked hard at doing.
If you wish to know I wrote the letter after the second occurrence.
People like this are a threat to everyone including yourself Frauline Hag.
In most organisations it would be treated like a cancer and cut out before it spreads.
You obviously think otherwise.
In my opinion give the jobs to someone more deserving and willing to work harder than some young (<50 yo in the case of QF) thing that carries on as if the world revolves around themselves whilst giving mediocre service.
Its about time your union looked at promoting excellence rather than supporting mediocrity.
Yes I understand the union has to look after all of its members, even the lowest common denominator I talk about here.
No - Qantas is not the most profitable airline in the world by far but what does amaze me is that it has gotten on for so long with the level of service provided by some - not most I trust.
Galley Hag - your response above only justifies the fact that you are not deserving of the conditions and priviledges your job provides, but I know many others that are.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD,
This forum is for professional pilots and other crew members.
You are obviously neither
I suggest you pi$$ off this forum as your opinions are not of interest to those of us who are long term comitted professionals to the industry.
FS
This forum is for professional pilots and other crew members.
You are obviously neither
I suggest you pi$$ off this forum as your opinions are not of interest to those of us who are long term comitted professionals to the industry.
FS
, flags up )
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD and Hallas,
For you and other pedants QF may not be THE most profitable airline worldwide however few would be in better shape financially.
The following was a quote from gd made around 12 of May 04-
" Qantas [is] on track for a record net profit of $600 million to $650 million for this financial year, and $700 million next year".
The following quote is from a channel news asia article posted today-
"Qantas is one of the world's most profitable airlines after posting a record interim profit of 283 million US dollars in February."
I fail to see how anybody of right mind could justify the loss of so many potential jobs [1000] for the sake of pure corporate greed.
L2P
BTW BCD, have you been taking your medication?
For you and other pedants QF may not be THE most profitable airline worldwide however few would be in better shape financially.
The following was a quote from gd made around 12 of May 04-
" Qantas [is] on track for a record net profit of $600 million to $650 million for this financial year, and $700 million next year".
The following quote is from a channel news asia article posted today-
"Qantas is one of the world's most profitable airlines after posting a record interim profit of 283 million US dollars in February."
I fail to see how anybody of right mind could justify the loss of so many potential jobs [1000] for the sake of pure corporate greed.
L2P
BTW BCD, have you been taking your medication?
Last edited by Left2primary; 31st May 2004 at 11:34.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD,
Although I agree that the two FAs you mentioned behaved unprofessionally in discussing their disdain for the company within earshot of passengers, there is no need to tar all QF FAs with the same proverbial brush.
Like every airline anywhere in the world, there are good eggs and bad eggs. It is unfortunate that you encountered two that clearly did not think before they spoke.
It is also unfortunate that you have such disgust for the FAAA. Like all unions, it does it's best to protect it's members. As long as it's members are abiding by the Agreement between the company and union, then not much can be done. If morale is bad at QF then that can hardly be the fault of the FAAA.
Perhaps QF's looming threat of moving more work offshore and in turn reducing Australian employment is the final blow to many FA's in QF. This could quite possibly be part of the reason you are experiencing such 'mediocre' service - maybe they just don't care anymore?
SG
Although I agree that the two FAs you mentioned behaved unprofessionally in discussing their disdain for the company within earshot of passengers, there is no need to tar all QF FAs with the same proverbial brush.
Like every airline anywhere in the world, there are good eggs and bad eggs. It is unfortunate that you encountered two that clearly did not think before they spoke.
It is also unfortunate that you have such disgust for the FAAA. Like all unions, it does it's best to protect it's members. As long as it's members are abiding by the Agreement between the company and union, then not much can be done. If morale is bad at QF then that can hardly be the fault of the FAAA.
Perhaps QF's looming threat of moving more work offshore and in turn reducing Australian employment is the final blow to many FA's in QF. This could quite possibly be part of the reason you are experiencing such 'mediocre' service - maybe they just don't care anymore?
SG
I suggest you pi$$ off this forum as your opinions are not of interest to those of us who are long term comitted professionals to the industry.
I would have though 'long term comitted (sic) professionals' would be interested in the views of their passengers - especially those with big accounts. And if they werent, they wouldnt make it bleedingly obvious.
Wow L2P, who's the pedant now?
Got any more usefull propoganda to spill here?
No wonder they want to out source quality staff away from the miserable tribe you come from.
halas
Got any more usefull propoganda to spill here?
No wonder they want to out source quality staff away from the miserable tribe you come from.
halas
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just maybe the attitude of some of the flight attendants has something to do with this idea. As I have said before, how do you justify paying someone up to around $100,000 as a head flight attendant (with the average being $70,000 for a flight attendant)? Perhaps the FAAA has started to price its members out of jobs.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCD
I'm with you.
I see some of the usual suspects are attempting to defend the indefensible on QF flight service.
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 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.
When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe, 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 focussed 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.
Qantas was ranked fourth in the 2004 Skytrax Airline of the Year survey. But the survey methodology goes to much more than cabin service.
Skytrax also surveys cabin service as a specific item. According to the Skytrax web site, the cabin service survey criteria are:
*Service Efficiency;
*Staff Cabin Presence;
*Service Attentiveness;
*Staff Friendliness;
*Consistency among Staff; and
*Sincerity and Attitude of Staff
The Skytrax 2004 survey results for cabin staff are due this month. However, in 2003, Qantas failed to make the Global Cabin Service Top 10 - see http://www.airlinequality.com/main/vote_staff_1-04.htm
There's no such thing as a job for life any more. For those QF cabin staff who feel disgruntled and allow their feelings to affect their performance, I suggest you look for something else. When you find that the grass over yonder isn't greener and is filled with dog turds, you'll then realise what you had wasn't all that bad after all.
I see some of the usual suspects are attempting to defend the indefensible on QF flight service.
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 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.
When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe, 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 focussed 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.
Qantas was ranked fourth in the 2004 Skytrax Airline of the Year survey. But the survey methodology goes to much more than cabin service.
Skytrax also surveys cabin service as a specific item. According to the Skytrax web site, the cabin service survey criteria are:
*Service Efficiency;
*Staff Cabin Presence;
*Service Attentiveness;
*Staff Friendliness;
*Consistency among Staff; and
*Sincerity and Attitude of Staff
The Skytrax 2004 survey results for cabin staff are due this month. However, in 2003, Qantas failed to make the Global Cabin Service Top 10 - see http://www.airlinequality.com/main/vote_staff_1-04.htm
There's no such thing as a job for life any more. For those QF cabin staff who feel disgruntled and allow their feelings to affect their performance, I suggest you look for something else. When you find that the grass over yonder isn't greener and is filled with dog turds, you'll then realise what you had wasn't all that bad after all.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How hilarious their cries of poor me are 
I look forward to watching the unionists having their butt kicked right across the 6 o'clock news. Bring it on.
Years and years of greed; and now it's time for their come-uppance.
The public will not support you.
I look forward to watching the unionists having their butt kicked right across the 6 o'clock news. Bring it on.
Years and years of greed; and now it's time for their come-uppance.
The public will not support you.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow !!!
L2P and Galley Hag, what can I say???
The way you both carry on only strengthens my resolve to think twice about flying QF in the future.
You both deserve each other.
Why dont you both take a leaf out of Syd Girls posting.
She addressed the problem I described with commonsense and rational discussion rather than the adversarial diatribe and inability to debate that you both (L2P and GH)keenly display.
Ftrplt and Argus - thank you both.
When will these guys like L2P and GH realise it is us that pay their wages and that the companies prosperity depends upon people like us that give them our patronage.
The way they carry on they dont deserve the jobs they have.
Is it true F/A's make upwards of over $70,000 pa???
Sounds like they are well and truly spoiled if thats the case.
Possibly the reason they are so bitter and toxic is that they know they would not be able to survive in the real world unless they have other qualifications if they ever lost their jobs.
Fartsock and ****su-Tonka.
Your parochial opinions show you both to be totally unprofessional - especially if you can't/wont accept objective criticism from others that are in a unique position to both observe the level of service and possibly affect your careers by taking our business elsewhere.
As stated earlier, if you cant keep hold of the pax that pay your wages then your company is in for a hard time and possibly at your expense.
Listen and learn Fartsock and ****su Tonka as you just may learn something in your life.
The truth may hurt people but a responsible professional would take note of whats mentioned and act on it accordingly - rather than attack for expressing the opinion that in these cases your service those times really sucked and maybe the jobs should go to those willing to do the right thing by QF, unlike yourselves.
By the way, I do know for a fact that this site is read by many throughout your company on a daily basis.
L2P and Galley Hag, what can I say???
The way you both carry on only strengthens my resolve to think twice about flying QF in the future.
You both deserve each other.
Why dont you both take a leaf out of Syd Girls posting.
She addressed the problem I described with commonsense and rational discussion rather than the adversarial diatribe and inability to debate that you both (L2P and GH)keenly display.
Ftrplt and Argus - thank you both.
When will these guys like L2P and GH realise it is us that pay their wages and that the companies prosperity depends upon people like us that give them our patronage.
The way they carry on they dont deserve the jobs they have.
Is it true F/A's make upwards of over $70,000 pa???
Sounds like they are well and truly spoiled if thats the case.
Possibly the reason they are so bitter and toxic is that they know they would not be able to survive in the real world unless they have other qualifications if they ever lost their jobs.
Fartsock and ****su-Tonka.
Your parochial opinions show you both to be totally unprofessional - especially if you can't/wont accept objective criticism from others that are in a unique position to both observe the level of service and possibly affect your careers by taking our business elsewhere.
As stated earlier, if you cant keep hold of the pax that pay your wages then your company is in for a hard time and possibly at your expense.
Listen and learn Fartsock and ****su Tonka as you just may learn something in your life.
The truth may hurt people but a responsible professional would take note of whats mentioned and act on it accordingly - rather than attack for expressing the opinion that in these cases your service those times really sucked and maybe the jobs should go to those willing to do the right thing by QF, unlike yourselves.
By the way, I do know for a fact that this site is read by many throughout your company on a daily basis.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amusing to see that the hysterical anti- Qf longhaul FA brigade have hijacked this thread.
BCD,
The original thread relates to the FAAA efforts to prevent 1000 jobs being exported overseas not, " my huge [11 million dollar] ego wasnt stroked long or hard enough for my liking so I wont fly QF again".
JBM,
I think you will find that the FAAA will garner its share of public support because their judgement on the issue of exporting jobs overseas, is not twisted by its hatred of the FA [QF longhaul only?] community. Unlike yourself.
May I repectfully suggest to those dedicated QF FA bashers that you start your own thread on those matters that mean so much to you, so that those with an interest in maintaining jobs here in Australia may debate without being hijacked.
L2P
BCD,
The original thread relates to the FAAA efforts to prevent 1000 jobs being exported overseas not, " my huge [11 million dollar] ego wasnt stroked long or hard enough for my liking so I wont fly QF again".
JBM,
I think you will find that the FAAA will garner its share of public support because their judgement on the issue of exporting jobs overseas, is not twisted by its hatred of the FA [QF longhaul only?] community. Unlike yourself.
May I repectfully suggest to those dedicated QF FA bashers that you start your own thread on those matters that mean so much to you, so that those with an interest in maintaining jobs here in Australia may debate without being hijacked.
L2P
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I repectfully suggest to those dedicated QF FA bashers that you start your own thread on those matters that mean so much to you, so that those with an interest in maintaining jobs here in Australia may debate without being hijacked.
L2P
I'm truly sorry that honest criticism of QF cabin service based on personal experience offends you. However, with great respect, it's stretching a long bow to assert that robust expositions of passenger dissatisfaction amount to a threat of violence.
Have another go, son!
As an Australian, I'd much prefer to see jobs remain here if at all possible. However, I don't see that as a blank cheque for unions to argue that the forces of competition don't apply to QF flight attendants.
I'm not normally into 'just the cut and paste' routine, but I commend to you last Saturday's editorial from the 'Sydney Morning Herald'.
QANTAS JOINS JOBS FLIGHT
The Qantas chief executive, Geoff Dixon, notes a "knee-jerk reaction" each time a company suggests the shift of Australian jobs overseas. To him, it is all a question of hard-nosed common sense. In the era of globalisation, where regulatory boundaries are increasingly irrelevant, companies meet rivals on competitive costs or they perish. The tough arithmetic for locating overseas 840 Qantas cabin crew - a quarter of the airline's international total - is a lot more compelling than Mr Dixon was forthcoming until a leaked internal document exposed Qantas's intentions. Now the plan is out, negotiations should proceed with greater frankness.
Mr Dixon says Qantas needs to put more workers offshore to increase efficiency and profitability so that the airline can compete more strongly internationally and expand job opportunities in Australia. That might sound self-contradictory. Consider, however, the crew logistics of the longest haul. Flight attendants leaving Sydney rest in a stopover, Singapore or Bangkok, for 24 hours before flying on to London where they spend three or four days in rest. The return flight involves a 48-hour stopover. By the time they return to Sydney, they will have spent 52 hours in flight for their nine days away.
The location of cabin crew in London might not save much on wages but would put a big dent in Qantas's crew accommodation costs. Naturally, Qantas also sees value - $20 million a year worth - in replacing 400 Australians with cheaper overseas workers.
There are threads, however, not necessarily immediately apparent to a company accountant's eye. Australian workers fear displacement for reasons of individual economic stress, and the community worries whether some modern paradox of wealth equates affluence inversely with job security. The wealthier a nation gets, it sometimes seems, the less able it is to retain the means of wealth for its people. The jobs export in footwear, clothing and textiles to low-cost locations over the past two or three decades, and of call centre jobs more recently, is indicative.
Qantas has a special, symbolic place in Australian life. If any changes such as those Mr Dixon now rightly proposes become inevitable in these tough times they must be made very carefully. Mr Dixon wants to soften up the unions ahead of a December renegotiation of job rules. His remarks should not be lightly dismissed as bluff and bravado. Too many international airlines have collapsed because they failed to adapt to competition, a result that serves neither shareholder nor worker.