I'll never fly a LCC because...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sweet-fa-boy
QF operate 5 crew on similar size 738, but have the dispensation as well with 4 crew (at reduced pax loads) in the case that a crew member goes sick and cannot be replaced.
This changed about a year ago.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So while CASA sets the MINIMUM requirement, it is the UNION that actually sets the number. 
I was hoping it had improved since the disgusting incident I quoted back in the 1980s, obviously not.
I was hoping it had improved since the disgusting incident I quoted back in the 1980s, obviously not.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down, airsupport.
Qantas SH cabin crew are lucky enough to have crew numbers contained in their EBA. However, the FAAA has recently agreed to losing one flight attendant from 333s (operated domestically) and dinner flights on 737s (except MEL-ADL-MEL). And that is outside the EBA. They agreed to it as it would be unreasonable not to, in these times. The loss of the extra on 737s was a bit of an issue for the FAAA as the company had not taken into account cart loadings, for instance. The FAAA and the company worked together to vary the loading of the product to allow cabin crew to work safely to get the service done.
In nine years I have never witnessed, or heard of, the FAAA not agreeing to reducing the cabin crew below the minimum set in our EBA either due to illness or company shortage. And that is from both crew bases and outports.
What will normally happen, and what has happened, is the FAAA will give dispensation and the company will agree to an abbreviated service for that sector. We experienced a crew shortage recently over a couple of months and 767 flights were going out without the extra crew required on short dinner flights. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to offer the current dinner product to 222 pax with four FAs on short sectors the FAAA approved dispensations on a per flight basis, taking into account flight times and pax loads. Obviously if there was only 50% pax the full service would still be offered.
We have the crewing levels in our EBA to protect our OHS in these situations and to better enable the operating crew to manage crew shortages and still meet customer expectations. Without the FAAA's involvement you would find crew rushing to complete the service to standard (which is unsafe) and most probably half the customers would not be offered anything and the half that had would not have their rubbish/trays collected (also unsafe).
Your concerns are unfounded. These are far different times. The FAAA insisting that crew levels be contained in our EBA (which Qantas agree to!) is purely for OHS reasons. It does not mean that numbers are not reduced due to shortages of crew (either due to illness or company mis-managment of crew resources) or financial crisis.
Qantas SH cabin crew are lucky enough to have crew numbers contained in their EBA. However, the FAAA has recently agreed to losing one flight attendant from 333s (operated domestically) and dinner flights on 737s (except MEL-ADL-MEL). And that is outside the EBA. They agreed to it as it would be unreasonable not to, in these times. The loss of the extra on 737s was a bit of an issue for the FAAA as the company had not taken into account cart loadings, for instance. The FAAA and the company worked together to vary the loading of the product to allow cabin crew to work safely to get the service done.
In nine years I have never witnessed, or heard of, the FAAA not agreeing to reducing the cabin crew below the minimum set in our EBA either due to illness or company shortage. And that is from both crew bases and outports.
What will normally happen, and what has happened, is the FAAA will give dispensation and the company will agree to an abbreviated service for that sector. We experienced a crew shortage recently over a couple of months and 767 flights were going out without the extra crew required on short dinner flights. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to offer the current dinner product to 222 pax with four FAs on short sectors the FAAA approved dispensations on a per flight basis, taking into account flight times and pax loads. Obviously if there was only 50% pax the full service would still be offered.
We have the crewing levels in our EBA to protect our OHS in these situations and to better enable the operating crew to manage crew shortages and still meet customer expectations. Without the FAAA's involvement you would find crew rushing to complete the service to standard (which is unsafe) and most probably half the customers would not be offered anything and the half that had would not have their rubbish/trays collected (also unsafe).
Your concerns are unfounded. These are far different times. The FAAA insisting that crew levels be contained in our EBA (which Qantas agree to!) is purely for OHS reasons. It does not mean that numbers are not reduced due to shortages of crew (either due to illness or company mis-managment of crew resources) or financial crisis.
Not necessarily, one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in my more than 40 years in the Industry, and also very sad for all of us that tried to find a way around it, was back in the 1980s with AN Airline.
We had a B767 transitting BNE, had a fresh crew boarding to operate BNE-SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE and one flight attendant rang in sick at the last mnute, and they had no spares available.
It was a full flight ex BNE of paying pax, many with International connections in SYD, plus many others with needs apart from the high fares they had paid.
The remaining 9 f/a's refused to man the flight.
The Captain was very good, tried to placate them, he said he only needed 8 by regulations and was quite happy to go with 9, or even 8, with a full load of pax.
They still refused to go.
What really upset all of us other employees, not to mention the pax, was we were ordered to despatch this B767 to SYD with the 3 flight crew and 9 f/a's on board, but NO pax.
The B767 ferried to SYD with 9 f/a's on board.
We had a B767 transitting BNE, had a fresh crew boarding to operate BNE-SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE and one flight attendant rang in sick at the last mnute, and they had no spares available.
It was a full flight ex BNE of paying pax, many with International connections in SYD, plus many others with needs apart from the high fares they had paid.
The remaining 9 f/a's refused to man the flight.
The Captain was very good, tried to placate them, he said he only needed 8 by regulations and was quite happy to go with 9, or even 8, with a full load of pax.
They still refused to go.
What really upset all of us other employees, not to mention the pax, was we were ordered to despatch this B767 to SYD with the 3 flight crew and 9 f/a's on board, but NO pax.
The B767 ferried to SYD with 9 f/a's on board.
Nunc est bibendum
In nine years I have never witnessed, or heard of, the FAAA not agreeing to reducing the cabin crew below the minimum set in our EBA either due to illness or company shortage. And that is from both crew bases and outports.
Not saying the FAAA did the right or wrong thing, just saying that it's not unheard of for them to draw a line in the sand over what can be very real issues to those affected. It's often a lot more complex than not getting the right crew meal.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
others will chime in shortly who know more of this incident than I but AFAIK the FAAA decided not to give dispensation for this aircraft as a culture of short crewing had occurred out of Sydney.
Evidently it costs money to train and employ FAs and the company weren't doing either.
Strange that the problem of short crewing aircraft ex Sydney just went away.
others will chime in shortly who know more of this incident than I but AFAIK the FAAA decided not to give dispensation for this aircraft as a culture of short crewing had occurred out of Sydney.
Evidently it costs money to train and employ FAs and the company weren't doing either.
Strange that the problem of short crewing aircraft ex Sydney just went away.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes!...F/As...the weak link and the ruination of many companies and detested by ALL other airline employees!!
What a joke they are and they're around for what?...about 5 minutes a time compared to other employees!
Spent 40 yrs working with them and was embarrassed to be associated with most of them!
What a joke they are and they're around for what?...about 5 minutes a time compared to other employees!
Spent 40 yrs working with them and was embarrassed to be associated with most of them!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it wasnt a refusal to grant a dispensation as such it was the utter frustration of continual operating short and the FAAA "directed" the crew not to operate the flight.
The AIRC deemed it to be illegal industrial action and ordered the FAAA to grant dispensations in a reasonable fashion and the AIRC orders were attached as a planning and scheduling agreement to the EBA.
The substance of the agreement is that dispensations cannot reasonably be withheld.
Qantas cancelled the payroll deductions of union fees for FAAA members and the FAAA had a major financial crisis and many members did not enter other arrangements and subsequently are still not members as it became a convenience excuse rather than resigning.
Qantas lodged a damages claim against the FAAA and its elected officials for the cost of the disruption and to this day it is still held in abeyance.
The AIRC deemed it to be illegal industrial action and ordered the FAAA to grant dispensations in a reasonable fashion and the AIRC orders were attached as a planning and scheduling agreement to the EBA.
The substance of the agreement is that dispensations cannot reasonably be withheld.
Qantas cancelled the payroll deductions of union fees for FAAA members and the FAAA had a major financial crisis and many members did not enter other arrangements and subsequently are still not members as it became a convenience excuse rather than resigning.
Qantas lodged a damages claim against the FAAA and its elected officials for the cost of the disruption and to this day it is still held in abeyance.
This might just get nasty.
Obie, im sorry you feel that way. But fortunately your sentiments are not shared amongst most of your colleagues.
Please take a moment to remember that your flight attendants are there to deal with the passengers so that you don't have to, be it during an emergency, or when a dementia patient drops a steamer in the forward galley (yes, it happened to me, no doubt its happened to others!).
To be honest Obie, i'd love to see you give it a go - they recruit people of all ages now you know - but somehow I just don't think the 'John Wayne' approach will cut it with the barrage of disability, equality, community and media organisations salivating over an opportunity to get some publicity!
And Metro - I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly. Anyone who thinks that Flight Attendants killed AN is kidding themselves - the same could be said for just about every other department if that is the case! If there is anyone on this planet who should understand just how airline management use 'precedent' when re-negotiating an EBA, it should be pilots.
I have worked for too many airlines spouting the 'good-will' bollocks to know that it is never reciprocated, and only ever used to screw you over next time you come up for re-negotiations.
As for tiger - its nice to know that what little is left of a 'safety culture' in australian aviation prevailed and the flight didn't go with less than 4. As for the customer service recovery - anyone who cant remember a time when they have worked for an aviation company when the screw up has been equally as bad is either very fresh or a heavy drinker!
Obie, im sorry you feel that way. But fortunately your sentiments are not shared amongst most of your colleagues.
Please take a moment to remember that your flight attendants are there to deal with the passengers so that you don't have to, be it during an emergency, or when a dementia patient drops a steamer in the forward galley (yes, it happened to me, no doubt its happened to others!).
To be honest Obie, i'd love to see you give it a go - they recruit people of all ages now you know - but somehow I just don't think the 'John Wayne' approach will cut it with the barrage of disability, equality, community and media organisations salivating over an opportunity to get some publicity!
And Metro - I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly. Anyone who thinks that Flight Attendants killed AN is kidding themselves - the same could be said for just about every other department if that is the case! If there is anyone on this planet who should understand just how airline management use 'precedent' when re-negotiating an EBA, it should be pilots.
I have worked for too many airlines spouting the 'good-will' bollocks to know that it is never reciprocated, and only ever used to screw you over next time you come up for re-negotiations.
As for tiger - its nice to know that what little is left of a 'safety culture' in australian aviation prevailed and the flight didn't go with less than 4. As for the customer service recovery - anyone who cant remember a time when they have worked for an aviation company when the screw up has been equally as bad is either very fresh or a heavy drinker!
it's the mileage
I've heard similar stories, including a flight crew refusing to operate because the wrong kind of meal was supplied.
And that was not a far out example, it actually happens.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh... Ozangel, you might be a little surprised at just how many agree with Obie when pushed. Hardly the downfall of AN, I agree, but the culture he raises... Well, there is credence there I'm afraid. When their level of self belief reached such heights that urges were made to have the CM be the 'No. 2' decision maker after the Captain on a diversion choice... Well that was when heckles were raised by many, to say the least. Whilst I met and remain friends with a number of delightful ex AN F/A's I have a sour recollection of them as a 'breed' and I doubt whether it's exclusive to the AN crowd either. The debate on union merit will rage long after we are gone but some flight attendants have done 'the cause' a great disservice over the years.
Oh, and by the way you aren't there so that the pilots don't have to deal with the awkward pax. You have a job to do and the pilots have a job to do. Apart from having the pax get off at their choice of destination with a pleasant demeanour there is no correlation between the two jobs whatsoever. The arrogance to assume otherwise is where the 'attitude', you so disapprove of, inevitably begins.
Oh, and by the way you aren't there so that the pilots don't have to deal with the awkward pax. You have a job to do and the pilots have a job to do. Apart from having the pax get off at their choice of destination with a pleasant demeanour there is no correlation between the two jobs whatsoever. The arrogance to assume otherwise is where the 'attitude', you so disapprove of, inevitably begins.
"I for one am grateful to those Ansett crew who refused to fly."
I'm sure all the passengers who missed their connecting flights, weddings, funerals, business meetings and appointments were grateful as well.
If the aircraft was certified to operate with eight f/a and nine were present, ie one more than the minimum legally required why couldn't they have gone ?
AN cabin crew enjoyed good pay and conditions surely it's not unreasonable to give a little in return in exceptional circumstances.
I'm not suggesting the flight attendents killed AN by themselves, many departments deserve recognition for the part they played. I already mentioned the pilots, the baggage handlers weren't exactly under paid and worked to death, the aircraft cleaners earned more than I did as a turbo prop captain. The management deserve their own book. QF wouldn't even pay $1 for AN when it was offered to them such was the state of things.
I remember the tears on the news when it all fell apart, people who wouldn't give a bit to get the job done despite well above average pay were now unemployed. Instead of being militant about petty details, they were out looking for work and what a surprise it must have been. I bet there weren't that many employers as good as AN around.
Pay me well, give me good conditions and I can be very cooperative. Work on an RDO sure, last minute change to the roster that I don't have to accept not a problem "Can you help us out with ........?" I'll do my best.
Under pay me and give me poor conditions, well you need to speak to a couple of my ex employers about that.
I'm sure all the passengers who missed their connecting flights, weddings, funerals, business meetings and appointments were grateful as well.
If the aircraft was certified to operate with eight f/a and nine were present, ie one more than the minimum legally required why couldn't they have gone ?
AN cabin crew enjoyed good pay and conditions surely it's not unreasonable to give a little in return in exceptional circumstances.
I'm not suggesting the flight attendents killed AN by themselves, many departments deserve recognition for the part they played. I already mentioned the pilots, the baggage handlers weren't exactly under paid and worked to death, the aircraft cleaners earned more than I did as a turbo prop captain. The management deserve their own book. QF wouldn't even pay $1 for AN when it was offered to them such was the state of things.
I remember the tears on the news when it all fell apart, people who wouldn't give a bit to get the job done despite well above average pay were now unemployed. Instead of being militant about petty details, they were out looking for work and what a surprise it must have been. I bet there weren't that many employers as good as AN around.
Pay me well, give me good conditions and I can be very cooperative. Work on an RDO sure, last minute change to the roster that I don't have to accept not a problem "Can you help us out with ........?" I'll do my best.
Under pay me and give me poor conditions, well you need to speak to a couple of my ex employers about that.