MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA
Defcon4, it may be true that short haulers voted an EBA up that allowed for the introduction of casuals. However the casuals are on an hourly rate equivalent to (or in some cases more than) permanent crew. They are also represented by the same union as permanent short haul crew, who ensure that casuals work under the same rest break, rostering and duty hour limitations as everyone else.
In the past, long haulers obviously voted for an EBA which allowed for overseas bases. Do the crew based in Auckland and Bangkok receive the same hourly rate of pay as you? Do they work under the same rostering rules, duty time limitations etc????..........I think we all know the answer to that question. What was the long haul union's part in all of this?
In the past, long haulers obviously voted for an EBA which allowed for overseas bases. Do the crew based in Auckland and Bangkok receive the same hourly rate of pay as you? Do they work under the same rostering rules, duty time limitations etc????..........I think we all know the answer to that question. What was the long haul union's part in all of this?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear “The The” unusual name 
As far as wage comparison goes, “The The” there is a difference between short haul permanent crew and casuals it’s a different job with a different job description with less pay, not more.
If you’re going to make an inaccurate statement like that on this site one would ask what your agenda or aim is?
Thanks Mr. "The the' or should I say "Mr.Pilot Pilot" ( Do you want your coffee NOW!, sir)
L1A
As far as wage comparison goes, “The The” there is a difference between short haul permanent crew and casuals it’s a different job with a different job description with less pay, not more.
If you’re going to make an inaccurate statement like that on this site one would ask what your agenda or aim is?
Thanks Mr. "The the' or should I say "Mr.Pilot Pilot" ( Do you want your coffee NOW!, sir)
L1A
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The The..Clarification
LH did not vote for overseas bases.
What Qantas does offshore is beyond the jurisdiction of Australain based unions.
The union lobbied hard to obtain a cap on the bases..and was successful.
You need to think and read a little more about the circumstances before commenting on them
What Qantas does offshore is beyond the jurisdiction of Australain based unions.
The union lobbied hard to obtain a cap on the bases..and was successful.
You need to think and read a little more about the circumstances before commenting on them
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Il duce Speaks
"Qantas' cabin crew are professional, hard working and respected employees, and they deserve better than to have the Long Haul FAAA – an organisation that is supposed to represent them – circulating misleading and inaccurate information," Mr Borghetti said.
What the?
Dixon and Borghetti have maligned threatened and generally treated lognhaul crew with absolute contempt.
Now,when it suits his purpose Il Duce comes up with this little pearl.
What a sanctimonious hypocrite!
What the?
Dixon and Borghetti have maligned threatened and generally treated lognhaul crew with absolute contempt.
Now,when it suits his purpose Il Duce comes up with this little pearl.
What a sanctimonious hypocrite!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the the or as you may like my type style as v v please get youre facts correct before you try to misrepresent them. you are way off the mark. if you are a pilot stick to what you know best. cheers gigs
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The The
Perhaps before you post on here you should actually know what you are talking about, or is it that you are deliberately spreading nonsense??
Casuals are on an hourly rate below the lowest increment point in the S/H flight attendant category. If they received the same as permanent crew there would be no need for them.
I can't believe the nonsense and innaccurate information that people like you post in here.
L/H never voted to allow O/S based crew. Qantas didn't need or ask for their "permission". Qantas like any Company can merely employ O/S.
What L/H crew through the FAAA did was to cap the use of overseas crew.... something that the Howard laws have rendered obsolete.
Casuals are on an hourly rate below the lowest increment point in the S/H flight attendant category. If they received the same as permanent crew there would be no need for them.
I can't believe the nonsense and innaccurate information that people like you post in here.
L/H never voted to allow O/S based crew. Qantas didn't need or ask for their "permission". Qantas like any Company can merely employ O/S.
What L/H crew through the FAAA did was to cap the use of overseas crew.... something that the Howard laws have rendered obsolete.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no point debating how the overseas bases are managed. Logic should prevail, overseas bases are out of the juristiction of Australian based unions.
MAM casuals are represented by an Aus based union and as such, I would expect any association representing my interests to work fully in it's jurisdiction, to do so.
As mentioned, when it was legal, a cap was secured after much lobbying from the FAAA.
The The, you talk of the MAM casuals providing the rest of us with FWA etc, and you are correct. However, this has merely further encouraged the company to beleive that we are dispensible, and shown us that our jobs are no more safe than they were previously.
We are stuck in a situation where we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. I am more interested in protecting our T & C's for the long term. Which means working as a full time employee without the ability to "pick and choose" the amount of hours I do.
MAM casuals are represented by an Aus based union and as such, I would expect any association representing my interests to work fully in it's jurisdiction, to do so.
As mentioned, when it was legal, a cap was secured after much lobbying from the FAAA.
The The, you talk of the MAM casuals providing the rest of us with FWA etc, and you are correct. However, this has merely further encouraged the company to beleive that we are dispensible, and shown us that our jobs are no more safe than they were previously.
We are stuck in a situation where we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. I am more interested in protecting our T & C's for the long term. Which means working as a full time employee without the ability to "pick and choose" the amount of hours I do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now let me point out the obvious. The 'casual' and/or under employment of the work force grows their conditions get worse. The ones who bebefit from them being their are the ones who dump hours or went part time. Those in middle seniority and those who don't dump - don't benefit. So it would seem a minority live the good life, a portion get no change, a portion get disadvantage and some have their condtions worsen.
No casual got to vote on their initial EBA in 2003[what about 2002] and in the 2006 EBA it only got up by 2%, and 100 didn't vote[we had to give staff # - some got scared and didn't vote].
Our representation is conflicted and bias.
Our EBA has been breached several times.
Meanwhile faaa thought contract C was a good thing. Let me see, 20 days[+5 a/v] of life a month with no pay guarantee, no say in days off, or trips, recieving $15000 less a year[if doing same f/t hrs]. 2006/7 VR will be replaced by an equal amount of contract C.
Union too busy fighting for FWA and a seniority to see what is going on is illegal, albeit in a legal loop-hole, no permanent position is safe whilst it can be replaced by an inferior, lower paid worker.
No casual got to vote on their initial EBA in 2003[what about 2002] and in the 2006 EBA it only got up by 2%, and 100 didn't vote[we had to give staff # - some got scared and didn't vote].
Our representation is conflicted and bias.
Our EBA has been breached several times.
Meanwhile faaa thought contract C was a good thing. Let me see, 20 days[+5 a/v] of life a month with no pay guarantee, no say in days off, or trips, recieving $15000 less a year[if doing same f/t hrs]. 2006/7 VR will be replaced by an equal amount of contract C.
Union too busy fighting for FWA and a seniority to see what is going on is illegal, albeit in a legal loop-hole, no permanent position is safe whilst it can be replaced by an inferior, lower paid worker.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that casual crew are paid $27 per hour. (This amount has been posted on another thread).
The highest rate of pay for permanent cabin crew is $26 per hour. I think you need 10 years service to reach this increment. The starting salary is considerably less.
The highest rate of pay for permanent cabin crew is $26 per hour. I think you need 10 years service to reach this increment. The starting salary is considerably less.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another techie who thinks they know it all. CASUALS are on the LOWEST rates. or sometimes no rates at all. thats part of what all these posts are about and who set up the system and who profits from it all?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might notice how the S/H union rep has AWOL from this thread and did not answer my question as to how many days permanent crew get off compared to the 3 days per month that "C" casuals get.This is what the union went along with as well.
The bottom line is that although the casuals were started with the idea of introducing flexibility into the workforce they are now being used to rid the company of full time cabin crew.The last thing the company wants is full time crew because we actually like the job and stick around and they can't have that can they?
So if "THE THE" and "call button" think that 3 days off per month is acceptable compared to what full time crew get then they can always apply.I'm sure that mam will always be interviewing especially after the VR packages.
The bottom line is that although the casuals were started with the idea of introducing flexibility into the workforce they are now being used to rid the company of full time cabin crew.The last thing the company wants is full time crew because we actually like the job and stick around and they can't have that can they?
So if "THE THE" and "call button" think that 3 days off per month is acceptable compared to what full time crew get then they can always apply.I'm sure that mam will always be interviewing especially after the VR packages.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casualvermin you write the faaa is "conflicted & bias"...............well they are starting to sound like a joke or,is their inaction for a reason?????? still lots of questions but no answers! cheers gigs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pay issue is more than an hourly rate. Permanent staff get a weekly wage(1st yr $596.9 up to 10th yr $844.8), a weekly allowance of $91.88 and band payments($2.03, some with 9 point value). Thee is also a pay guarantee of 140hours a month, with a requirement to only work 123hrs. IPD and D/O drafting.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casualvermin
I can assure you the FAAA is not too busy fighting for FWA and seniority issues. They are too busy trying to find work for casual crew at the expense of permanent crew RE VR program.
You think your EBA has been breached, we have clauses which are breached on an on-going basis and what does the FAAA do send us notices with gems like "as recently as yesterday, problems with work available for distribution to Category C and B, MAM flight attendants". Quick frankly who gives a stuff about the availability of work for MAM flight attendants when we are being told about the redundancy program.
I can assure you the FAAA is not too busy fighting for FWA and seniority issues. They are too busy trying to find work for casual crew at the expense of permanent crew RE VR program.
You think your EBA has been breached, we have clauses which are breached on an on-going basis and what does the FAAA do send us notices with gems like "as recently as yesterday, problems with work available for distribution to Category C and B, MAM flight attendants". Quick frankly who gives a stuff about the availability of work for MAM flight attendants when we are being told about the redundancy program.