QANTAS crew face wait for hotel ruling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS crew face wait for hotel ruling
Sydney Morning Herald
January 31, 2006 - 9:44PM
Qantas cabin crew, who claim they have been exposed to drug deals and violence at their Los Angeles hotel, must wait at least four months before they find out whether the airline is required to move them to another location.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been hearing a dispute lodged by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) on behalf of Qantas cabin crew who are required to stay at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles.
Qantas relocated its flight crew to the hotel in downtown Los Angeles in March last year and currently uses about 250 rooms per night.
But the FAAA claimed the hotel's location exposed staff to threats to their personal safety.
It told the AIRC the area was "rampant with drug dealers and intimidating locals" and some cabin crew had been physically assaulted, had experienced threats of assault, witnessed drug dealing and taking, and been subject to harassment and intimidation.
In one incident, a female flight attendant recounted how she was "absolutely terrified" after being victimised on a bus with sexually explicit threats including: "I'm going to give you venereal disease".
Qantas, which did not dispute any of the claims, said it had now made arrangements so crew could be escorted by hotel staff to nearby shops.
The airline also said that according to the Los Angeles Police Department the crime rate in the downtown area had fallen in recent years.
In his judgment on the matter, AIRC Commissioner Frank Raffaelli said the seriousness of some of the incidents recounted by cabin crew raised the question whether the airline was contravening its enterprise bargaining agreement requirements to provide a "high security standard" for staff.
"I do not think it appropriate to provide a quick fix by either making findings that would force Qantas to move location, or to dismiss FAAA's concerns when it has provided instances of troubling events," he said in his judgment.
"In these circumstances, I propose that a four-month period be established during which the situation can be further monitored."
© 2006 AAP
January 31, 2006 - 9:44PM
Qantas cabin crew, who claim they have been exposed to drug deals and violence at their Los Angeles hotel, must wait at least four months before they find out whether the airline is required to move them to another location.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been hearing a dispute lodged by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) on behalf of Qantas cabin crew who are required to stay at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles.
Qantas relocated its flight crew to the hotel in downtown Los Angeles in March last year and currently uses about 250 rooms per night.
But the FAAA claimed the hotel's location exposed staff to threats to their personal safety.
It told the AIRC the area was "rampant with drug dealers and intimidating locals" and some cabin crew had been physically assaulted, had experienced threats of assault, witnessed drug dealing and taking, and been subject to harassment and intimidation.
In one incident, a female flight attendant recounted how she was "absolutely terrified" after being victimised on a bus with sexually explicit threats including: "I'm going to give you venereal disease".
Qantas, which did not dispute any of the claims, said it had now made arrangements so crew could be escorted by hotel staff to nearby shops.
The airline also said that according to the Los Angeles Police Department the crime rate in the downtown area had fallen in recent years.
In his judgment on the matter, AIRC Commissioner Frank Raffaelli said the seriousness of some of the incidents recounted by cabin crew raised the question whether the airline was contravening its enterprise bargaining agreement requirements to provide a "high security standard" for staff.
"I do not think it appropriate to provide a quick fix by either making findings that would force Qantas to move location, or to dismiss FAAA's concerns when it has provided instances of troubling events," he said in his judgment.
"In these circumstances, I propose that a four-month period be established during which the situation can be further monitored."
© 2006 AAP
250 rooms per night would be right - after all, there are 7 (I think) flights per day to Los ANgeles out of Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Auckland, each with 4 tech crew & 15 cabin crew. 19 x 7 = 133. Bear in mind that there are a large number of LA slips that include more than one night, and also the fact that some slips have crew arriving at ~8am & then departing the hotel at ~10 pm the following evening, and you can quite easily see how the requirement is now ~250 rooms per night.
Dizzy - Compton is about 3 stops away on the Long Beach line (subway)...
There's an interesting article on police efforts to clean up Skidrow here:
[NB: Bunker Hill is 2 blocks in one direction from the hotel, while the Staples Centre is about 10 blocks in the other direction - thereby placing the hotel firmly in the 'skid row' district mentioned in the article]
Travel Wiki also has a few interesting things to say about Safety in Los Angeles:
Dizzy - Compton is about 3 stops away on the Long Beach line (subway)...
There's an interesting article on police efforts to clean up Skidrow here:
Crime was down across the city, but Bratton acknowledged that the LAPD still has work to do to improve some pockets such as downtown's skid row, where a fifth of the city's narcotics arrests were made in 2005. The area has a crime rate of 128 per 1,000 residents.
Although skid row is unlikely to become the draw that Times Square is, there are similarities. The drop in crime in Times Square coincided with a major redevelopment effort that brought Disney and other major corporate names to the once-seedy area. In L.A., the blocks around skid row are undergoing a revitalization, with lofts and high-end condos rising and two major shopping districts planned — one on Bunker Hill, the other near Staples Center.
Some downtown activists are encouraged by the LAPD's efforts and note that despite the improvements downtown, skid row remains a major problem. In recent months, revelations that hospitals and outside police agencies dump homeless people in the area have lead to a criminal probe of medical facilities and demands for change from political leaders.
There are some areas in Los Angeles County that are considered to be less safe than others. The cities between Downtown Los Angeles and the Port of San Pedro are collectively known as South Central, notorious for the Watts Riots in the 1960s, the Los Angeles Riots in the 1990s and made infamous by many gangster rap songs. The area is roughly bounded on the east and west by the 110 and 710 Freeways although areas immediately outside of those boundaries may also be a bit rough around the edges as well. While one can generally travel safely in these areas, travellers should be wary, especially of gang activity and try to avoid the area after dark.
The area east of Downtown L.A., aka East L.A., also has a higher crime rate than other areas and has gang problems as well.
The area east of Downtown L.A., aka East L.A., also has a higher crime rate than other areas and has gang problems as well.
Last edited by Johhny Utah; 31st Jan 2006 at 21:20.
Downtown LA is a hole. I've stayed at the Bonaventure as well. I once walked from Chinatown back towards the hotel and a police car stopped and gave me a lift, telling me I was "crazy" to be walking in that nieghbourhood.
Why not just buy a motel somewhere up in Santa Monica?
Why not just buy a motel somewhere up in Santa Monica?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Expat land
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250 rooms a night
2000 per week was the figure quoted by Company sources when re-locating downtown. Most LA slips are 2 (hotel) nights; add NY crews and ad-hoc stuff to Johhny U's figures above and you need at least that many!
QF claim that's the reason they can't accomodate everyone at Pasadena or anywhere else decent.
QF claim that's the reason they can't accomodate everyone at Pasadena or anywhere else decent.
Nunc est bibendum
C'mon Sunny, you know the answer to that. Buying a hotel means a truck load of cash NOW and less oulay over the longer term. We all know what impact that has on bonuses for the incumbents. They don't want some manager five years down the track getting the benefit of their decision making now. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What The...?
The hotel is fine.It is just a matter of adapting.
If we win we will probably be moved to Anaheim or the airport.
Then there will really be screams of protest.
Better the Devil you know.
If we win we will probably be moved to Anaheim or the airport.
Then there will really be screams of protest.
Better the Devil you know.
Hey - don't get me wrong, the hotel is much better than being at Anaheim, or Long Beach for that matter. I don't have a problem with it to any great extent, nor do most of the crew who stay there who can summon up enough initiative to get on the bus/train & get out of there, and go somewhere else outside the immediate environs of downtown LA.
I just wanted to get in before we had a flurry of "boo hoo
How hard can staying in a 4 star hotel be?" style responses. Make of it what you will. 
The reason outwardly for moving to the hotel was to consolidate transport. Thh financial reasons were a saving per room, per night, of something in the order of USD$22 if the rumours are correct - which equates to $5500 per night, or $38,500 per week, or just over $2m per year. PLUS the saving from 'consolidating transport' (of course)
Then again, perhaps we should all vote to move somewhere else to save the company money. After all, enough people voted to send new hire S/O's to Singapore for a significant cost saving
I just wanted to get in before we had a flurry of "boo hoo
How hard can staying in a 4 star hotel be?" style responses. Make of it what you will. The reason outwardly for moving to the hotel was to consolidate transport. Thh financial reasons were a saving per room, per night, of something in the order of USD$22 if the rumours are correct - which equates to $5500 per night, or $38,500 per week, or just over $2m per year. PLUS the saving from 'consolidating transport' (of course)
Then again, perhaps we should all vote to move somewhere else to save the company money. After all, enough people voted to send new hire S/O's to Singapore for a significant cost saving
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that hotel.
The area is Central to all kinds of transport.
The hosties simply don't want to catch a "bus", its too far to get their nails done or to the mall.
It astounds me the Little knowledge they have of the downtown area and what is available to them.
The only concession I will give is that it "seems" unsafe to move around at night, but then when we were at Pasadena you never saw them anyway, they would go up to Gelsen's and buy a BBQ chicken and stuff themselves in their rooms.
I like the misadventure and I Hope that we stay there, you watch the screams and the howls from the hosties if we have to stay at Anaheim.
This is not to blame the FAAA but why did they take this to the commission, there are far more important issues going on at the moment
The area is Central to all kinds of transport.
The hosties simply don't want to catch a "bus", its too far to get their nails done or to the mall.
It astounds me the Little knowledge they have of the downtown area and what is available to them.
The only concession I will give is that it "seems" unsafe to move around at night, but then when we were at Pasadena you never saw them anyway, they would go up to Gelsen's and buy a BBQ chicken and stuff themselves in their rooms.
I like the misadventure and I Hope that we stay there, you watch the screams and the howls from the hosties if we have to stay at Anaheim.
This is not to blame the FAAA but why did they take this to the commission, there are far more important issues going on at the moment
True, there is nothing wrong with the hotel there is everything wrong with the location of the hotel. I would have thought Santa Monica, even hollywood fer chrisake would be quicker and simpler.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Size
There are not many hotels that can provide 250 rooms every night 365 days a year.
Certainly none in Hollywood or Santa Monica for chrisake.
Certainly not at that(QF) room rate
Certainly none in Hollywood or Santa Monica for chrisake.
Certainly not at that(QF) room rate
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
honestly sunfish its really not that bad, there is a lot of hysteria surrounding it.
Most of the blokes like it, its the chicks, they are too far away from "the gap" and the air conditioned mall.
I think QF management should do a survey, Bonaventure or Anaheim!
Anyway the only fault I can find with it is that some rooms are noisy.
Most of the blokes like it, its the chicks, they are too far away from "the gap" and the air conditioned mall.
I think QF management should do a survey, Bonaventure or Anaheim!
Anyway the only fault I can find with it is that some rooms are noisy.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news is that The Miss Adventure want Qantas out. They have been given approval to build self-contained apartments in about half of the hotel rooms with renovations about to start. Pasadena is out as Virgin Atlantic have moved into our old rooms at The Sheraton. It can only get worse before it will get better. XER
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who Decides?
I'm not ex crew but as an ex staff member who travelled on duty I can say that some of the old hotels were not that bad. But who picks them?
Surely the most logical thing to do would be to 'go to tender'
- requirements
nnn rooms per night,
pool & gym,
lock up facility for crew equipment such as bikes, etc
x K's from airport,
x minutes from airport,
safe location, etc, etc, etc
A tender to provide this worldwide with say the biggest hotel group in the world (Inter-Continental Hotel Grp) would give you some good hotels, such as: Inter-Continental, Crown Plaza, Holiday Inn, etc, etc and surely there's the better ones (Inter-Cont & Crown Plaza) everywhere QF flies to?
Crowne Plaza Time Square (saw Lufthansa crew checking in there last year), Crown Plaza Redondo Beach (saw JAL & BA crew there).
Surely the most logical thing to do would be to 'go to tender'
- requirements
nnn rooms per night,
pool & gym,
lock up facility for crew equipment such as bikes, etc
x K's from airport,
x minutes from airport,
safe location, etc, etc, etc
A tender to provide this worldwide with say the biggest hotel group in the world (Inter-Continental Hotel Grp) would give you some good hotels, such as: Inter-Continental, Crown Plaza, Holiday Inn, etc, etc and surely there's the better ones (Inter-Cont & Crown Plaza) everywhere QF flies to?
Crowne Plaza Time Square (saw Lufthansa crew checking in there last year), Crown Plaza Redondo Beach (saw JAL & BA crew there).
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex QF, not really sure what your point is - that's exactly what they do. Well, they may not openly advertise for tenders but they certainly go to hotels and say, "what's your deal for the following".
But it all comes down to price - what price Qantas is prepared to pay. And they will compromise on certain parts of that tender list, if necessary, to get the price down. Eg, you''ll get a pretty hotel all right, with a gym, but in a really dodgy part of town. Eg, Bonadventure.
Mate, years ago Qantas crew stayed at the Crowne Plaza Redondo Beach, but some non flying, "doesn't affect me" person calculated they could save $x mil per year so the crew were shuffled out. It was a brilliant location but "too good for crew."
Surprise, surprise, with accom at such a premium in LA, within a microsecond British Airways had stepped into the void created at Rendondo.
If Qantas was genuinely prepared to pay an appropriate price to ensure crews have a "home away from home" in a secure location, there'd be no problem. And I'm not advocating 5 stars, please note - just something that "equates" to a standard of living back home. That includes a safe location.
But it all comes down to price - what price Qantas is prepared to pay. And they will compromise on certain parts of that tender list, if necessary, to get the price down. Eg, you''ll get a pretty hotel all right, with a gym, but in a really dodgy part of town. Eg, Bonadventure.
Mate, years ago Qantas crew stayed at the Crowne Plaza Redondo Beach, but some non flying, "doesn't affect me" person calculated they could save $x mil per year so the crew were shuffled out. It was a brilliant location but "too good for crew."
Surprise, surprise, with accom at such a premium in LA, within a microsecond British Airways had stepped into the void created at Rendondo.
If Qantas was genuinely prepared to pay an appropriate price to ensure crews have a "home away from home" in a secure location, there'd be no problem. And I'm not advocating 5 stars, please note - just something that "equates" to a standard of living back home. That includes a safe location.
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by Ex QF
A tender to provide this worldwide with say the biggest hotel group in the world (Inter-Continental Hotel Grp) would give you some good hotels...
Additionally, there are numerous times when a brand of hotel in one city will be entirely unacceptable in the next. Novotel in Bangkok was great....not so flash in Brisbane (VERY noisy!).
Ron and Edna are spot on the money though. Most of us aren't after the pure 'five stars' (the fact we stay at the Holiday Inn at Narita is testament to THAT!) but we are after somewhere safe where we can lead some semblance of a 'normal' life!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where we end up next be sure to buy some realestate in the new area. It seems Qantas sends us to a slightly scummy area and a few years later, it is great place and on the up and up. XER
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to stay at either the Marriot or the Hilton in Torrence, easy walk to Redondo, huge mall, fairly secure area, good supermarket and a few good eating places etc. etc. Have QF thought about either of these?