Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA

Old 14th May 2007, 23:39
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote-

"It would be logical to assume that if both international and domestic wings of the FAAA amalgamate then that cosy relationship will filter into L/H"

----------

Without knowing anything of the elected individuals running the L/H FAAA one may very well assume so.

Those who know them however wouldn't make the same assumption.
speedbirdhouse is offline  
Old 14th May 2007, 23:41
  #302 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly right RTB, so instead of accepting it, what can be done to stop it?

What can existing cabin crew and the union's do?

Which would be the best course?

A third union? One union? Who would stay? Who would go?

Or should we just concentrate on what bottle we're going to get at the duty free and allow it to get worse?
casualvermin is offline  
Old 14th May 2007, 23:44
  #303 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Speed - why can't the l/h FAAA represent all of us?? what is stopping them?
Then that would be a start?
casualvermin is offline  
Old 14th May 2007, 23:47
  #304 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks Mid-63. AKL 340. That is quite a number. Say five in Japan.
What is the cap?
casualvermin is offline  
Old 14th May 2007, 23:51
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
with new laws there is no cap on o/s crew!!! cheers gigs
gigs is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 00:40
  #306 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
speedbirdhouse:I apologise if you thought my post inferred anything as far as the officials of the L/H union is concerned.
The point I was trying to make is that the airlines have no trouble attracting people under those conditions and if we are to survive I can't see much else the L/H can use as a bargaining chip.
It is basically a 'B' scale and since the actions of S/H and their cosy relationship do not seem to be over the company will want some kind of cost reduction to bring us into line with the domestics.
If you can think of any other card we have up our sleeve then by all means the L/H officials will use them but I think we have been painted into a corner.
Remember how many people were happy to be trained in the middle of the night to replace us and a lot of them are in AKL right now.
Hopefully a change of government will help as will a combined union but I honestly believe that there is too much ill feeling towards us in S/H.If we are to amalgamate then they will want us to have casuals in L/H for sure because they will not give them up.
RedTBar is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 02:19
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
again folks NO CAP on the o/s bases with the new ir laws no cap no cap no cap if you are in doubt pls check with l/haul faaa.......cheers gigs p.s that means qantas can employ as many o/s crew now as they like. is there any other way i can say this no cap bizz....?
gigs is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 02:24
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 56
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hey gigs do you have a stutter?

no cap no cap no cap

girly you are right there is no cap but the only thing saving us is the stories that the lhr base is still losing dough and gd will not talk about it just like jetstar asia
roamingwolf is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 03:09
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Those who know them however wouldn't make the same assumption.
Really...I think you would be very surprised by that comment.

---------

mn63,

really, how so? Given that I made it.
speedbirdhouse is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 05:26
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 56
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Midnight,mate you said 'I think you would be very surprised at the reaction to your comment'

so tell us what you reckon the reaction to speedbirds comment would be.
roamingwolf is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 05:35
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another BS statement about the LHR Base

Once again the misinformed are making statements (see lies) about the LHR base loosing money.

Here is your chance to put your proof forward in a open forum!!!!!

And none of that my spies in QCC prego club told me.

Just plain facts that can be backed up!!!!

Would you like me to publish on here the audited results for last year and the year before????

Every KPI met and above, even our turn over is below 5% in the last 7 months, which is 10% below industry average for the UK.

I fully understand your passion but keep it real !!!!!!

You are right about one thing returning LH LHR CSM's will be rewarded for the loyalty shown over the last 2 years.

Just to let you know if there is one bit of work place harrasment shown..... the crew have been told it will be dealt with severly and no warnings.
peanut pusher is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 05:58
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 56
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are right about one thing returning LH LHR CSM's will be rewarded for the loyalty shown over the last 2 years.

mate is that the same company who would not let loyal crew transfer to lhr but made them take lwop.is that the same company who set up a company in the uk so that they did not have to pay you australian super?
pal i'd love you to publish the 'audited' figures for the lhr base.will it show the cost to the thai base for all those bkk crew who spent so long in lhr they went home with a brit acent.
why have the company not published figures and told us how much the base saved qf?
i reckon your right though about one thing and that is they decide they want more csm's and they have not for years.the return of the lhr base crew is jsut a coincidence plus how long crew have to put in the paperwork.

how about the company showing lyalty to the crew that have worked for them for years just not 2.
roamingwolf is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 06:46
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 56
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mate are you talking l/h,s/h or both?
roamingwolf is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 07:16
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i only look at facts and,facts are facts the s/haul faaa have painted a poor picture for em selves.......but dont read the gabble that i write you only need read the papers! cheers gigs
gigs is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 07:35
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and that is what is probably going to happen cosy joins l/haul faaa now that would be a great asset for l/haul faaa!
gigs is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 07:54
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mn63,

the longhaul FAAA in bed with the company????

Try posting on matters that you have "some" understanding.

Has that CIS "typo" been sorted out to your satisfaction?

Quote-
"Short haul could pass on a few tricks of the trade that long haul don't have and then we would be really [email protected]#^ed."

--------

"We"???
Aren't you a jitconnict FA based out of AKL???
speedbirdhouse is offline  
Old 15th May 2007, 09:56
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sbh in consideration of v royal we what part of mn 63s quote is incorrect?
gigs is offline  
Old 16th May 2007, 03:38
  #318 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For all those l/h out there I think what some of us want to know is, are the l/h faaa respectable? But with more than just a 'yes'. I would like to here some qualified answers. In the s/h division there is a distinct lake of trust of faaa. I think you'll find that many in jitconnect have come from our shores wanting to get back into flying.

Are the l/h faaa swayed by 'jobs for the boys'?
What percentage of l/h are members?
L/H FAAA certainly have more teeth than my faaa!
I also wonder how many s/h are members of our faaa, perhaps maybe the faaa have been looking after the interest of the majority, hence casuals, fwa and parttime??? Maybe this current situation of VR and high casuals numbers(800) is what everybody wants? They don't want this job to around in next 10yrs?

Also when will AW and FAAA acknowledge the memo sent out 3 weeks ago. Where is our representation?? Why are they still in the office in Mel, rubbing our noses in it?

What contempt they have for their MAM members.
casualvermin is offline  
Old 16th May 2007, 05:09
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ditto! casualvermin
gigs is offline  
Old 16th May 2007, 07:55
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Casualvermin,

you would be lucky to find a single longhaul crew member delusional enough to think that the Longhaul FAAA are "in bed" with the company.

Those who know the elected officials or anything of the recent history between the Longhaul FAAA and the company would laugh at the proposition.

My information suggests that in excess of 95% of longhaul crew are members of the Longhaul FAAA.
Interesting that the actions of CC management over the last few years has resulted in an upswing in membership.

What exactly do you mean by the question, "Are the l/h faaa swayed by 'jobs for the boys'?"
I'd be happy to give you my thoughs but Im at a loss as to your meaning?
speedbirdhouse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.