Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike many other previous QF complete screw ups, one effect of AJ's evidence to the senate is that he and he alone will wear the responsibility for these acts.
There is a chance some Board members may be dragged into it, but don't hold your breathe on that one.
There is no ability to hide in a foreign jurisdiction, there is no junior manager who could cop it or even go to prison, there is no underling who acted without authority etc etc (and we have heard them all from this lot over the last ten years).
The key is to now make sure no one forgets that.
There is a chance some Board members may be dragged into it, but don't hold your breathe on that one.
There is no ability to hide in a foreign jurisdiction, there is no junior manager who could cop it or even go to prison, there is no underling who acted without authority etc etc (and we have heard them all from this lot over the last ten years).
The key is to now make sure no one forgets that.
Here's last Friday's (4-11-2011) Hansard for the Qantas Sale Act inquiry:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s428.pdf
SimonBl, the hosties are on from pg 62 onwards.
cheers
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s428.pdf
SimonBl, the hosties are on from pg 62 onwards.
cheers
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loved the line "That is not our intention" in relation to possible Jetstar on Frankfurt route and the reply "that's not what it reads here"
Qantas used that line to the Eastern pilots on an EBA clause regarding weekends off and got the "Not our intention letter" where they could have changed the clause to the original agreed clause.
They voted it down! Which cost the pilots 10's of thousands of dollars each in back pay.
Industrial thuggery by the curry clown.
Every time its sounds suspicious with Qantas, it is. They use that line way too much, it must be in Qantas management 101 hand book
Qantas used that line to the Eastern pilots on an EBA clause regarding weekends off and got the "Not our intention letter" where they could have changed the clause to the original agreed clause.
They voted it down! Which cost the pilots 10's of thousands of dollars each in back pay.
Industrial thuggery by the curry clown.
Every time its sounds suspicious with Qantas, it is. They use that line way too much, it must be in Qantas management 101 hand book
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Joyce page 12 of the Senate Transcript:
Perhaps Alan should get to know his competitors!
Emirates Reports US$225m Profit despite Global Challenges | Scoop News
Alan - Qantas the ONLY airline in the world that actually had profits during the GFC, you are full of Sh#t.
MC
If you look at airlines around the world, Qantas has actually outperformed them. Qantas is the only airline in the world with an investment-grade credit rating. Qantas is the only airline in the world that actually had profits during the global financial crisis.
Emirates Reports US$225m Profit despite Global Challenges | Scoop News
4th Nov 2011 Emirates remains on its strong growth trajectory which over the past seven years has seen the airline grow from a fleet of 60 aircraft in 2004 to its current 161 wide-bodied aircraft including, the largest fleet of A380s with 17, and the largest fleet of Boeing 777s, with 93. In addition, the company's revenue has increased steadily by 20 per cent per annum over the same period, resulting in a record 23 years of profitability, unmatched by any other airline.
MC
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs,
Wow. Gutsy indeed. I don't think I need to see the video. Thanks for the link Sarcs, I will read more later tonight.
SimonBl, the hosties are on from pg 62 onwards.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These FA's deserve credit for their efforts this time and at the previous Senate Committee hearings. There is little doubt that some of the Committee are well aware of the personal risks they face and I particularly liked Senators Cameron's barely concealed threat to BB and his company.
Jetstar will tough it out for the moment, but eventually the pressure to conform to appropriate standards of behaviour when dealing with their corporate antics will result in change.
Jetstar will tough it out for the moment, but eventually the pressure to conform to appropriate standards of behaviour when dealing with their corporate antics will result in change.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senator XENOPHON: Could I ask you to provide, without breaching any confidentiality, the roster for your overseas based crew for flights in and out of Australia for October and this month?
Mr Buchanan: I can give you all the average stats. For instance, I look at the average hours of each roster and the average hours at each base. The average hours range between 27 and 30 total hours per week, and for flying hours it is around 20 hours. It is very similar across each of the bases. The average duty length for someone in Bangkok or Melbourne—or any of our other bases when they are flying internationally—is almost identical. They all come in at about 10.5 hours.
Senator XENOPHON: Does average hours include time people have off work? Does that figure include flight attendants who are office based and who do not fly?
Mr Buchanan: No, I am just talking about the active average duty time for people flying, and the base times are almost identical.
Senator XENOPHON: I would be grateful if you could provide that roster.
Mr Buchanan: I can give you all the average stats. For instance, I look at the average hours of each roster and the average hours at each base. The average hours range between 27 and 30 total hours per week, and for flying hours it is around 20 hours. It is very similar across each of the bases. The average duty length for someone in Bangkok or Melbourne—or any of our other bases when they are flying internationally—is almost identical. They all come in at about 10.5 hours.
Senator XENOPHON: Does average hours include time people have off work? Does that figure include flight attendants who are office based and who do not fly?
Mr Buchanan: No, I am just talking about the active average duty time for people flying, and the base times are almost identical.
Senator XENOPHON: I would be grateful if you could provide that roster.
Senator X is now tuning in to the BB spin frequency!!
More to Follow
The Kelpie
Ps make sure senator X gets an un-doctored version !! Consider this a bit of friendly advice!!
Wow. Gutsy indeed. I don't think I need to see the video. Thanks for the link Sarcs, I will read more later tonight.
Reading it word for word has a lot more impact than you would think, sometimes taking out the emotions etc of the narrator helps to cut to their message.
I believe the narrative from those two hosties was particularly damning of the work practises at Jetstar! I'd be surprised if their story isn't in the process of being snapped up by 60 minutes or 4 corners right now!
Job well done those two!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs:
I'm familiar with Hansard and have the utmost faith in the accuracy of the record.
FYSTI:
The Chair and one or two of the Senators made it perfectly clear:
Senator CAMERON: It gets murky and murkier, I must say. Thank you very much. I have got to say that you are very courageous.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator CAMERON: We will certainly be watching very closely in relation to any action that may be taken against you. I indicate publicly that I am sure every Senator here—most of the senators here—
Senator XENOPHON: I think every senator.
Senator CAMERON: Every Senator? Is that the case? I hear some senators say they like AWAs.
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, but the disadvantage issue is a separate issue.
Senator CAMERON: The disadvantage issue is separate, okay.
CHAIR: Our standing orders of the Senate make it very, very clear: if you need our assistance you will contact us, but I know damn well you won't.
Senator EGGLESTON: This is a very serious matter that we have heard evidence about. I wonder what the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is—the overarching authority for aviation—in terms of the terms and conditions under which crew work? Perhaps that is something the committee should seek some advice about.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: We would also like to know the answer on that—myself, Michael and all our fellow colleagues out there.
Senator EGGLESTON: I am sure you would.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Most definitely. And we welcome it.
Senator EGGLESTON: And if we get advice, we will pass it on to you.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Eggleston. I just want to clarify. When I said, 'I know damn you won't.' I mean you damn well won't need to, because Mr Buchanan is a very responsible employer and I am sure he would love to hear if there is any breakdown in his occupational health and safety systems and to address them.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: Just a couple of things to follow up. Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you told me before in your evidence that you were provided with emails from a number of flight attendants about their complaints. As I understand it, you have permission to provide that to the committee but not necessarily disclosing their names for public consumption. I do not know whether we need to discuss that with the secretary.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Cabin crew have asked me to ask the Senate to consider these emails without publishing their names or making their identities public at any stage.
CHAIR: We can take them in camera.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Okay, thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: There is one final issue, if I may.
CHAIR: Yes, you may.
Senator XENOPHON: Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you gave evidence—when was it?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: 31 March.
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, it is a long time ago. Can you say whether the allocated work you have had has been about the same? You are not suggesting there has been any prejudice against you since that time?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: There have been some questionable moments and times since my last appearance. It is sad that you cannot pinpoint a single person, but the behaviour one would deem quite odd—and I deem it quite odd myself.
Senator XENOPHON: There is an avenue you may want to take up with the committee if you consider you have been prejudiced.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Correct.
This is what I found in Standing Orders, couldn't find any details (after a quick look) of any penalties, though:
Molestation of witnesses
(11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee.
SimonBl, I think you'll find the Hansard people are very good and will not miss anything!
FYSTI:
Would any retribution against witnesses not constitute contempt of the Senate?
Senator CAMERON: It gets murky and murkier, I must say. Thank you very much. I have got to say that you are very courageous.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator CAMERON: We will certainly be watching very closely in relation to any action that may be taken against you. I indicate publicly that I am sure every Senator here—most of the senators here—
Senator XENOPHON: I think every senator.
Senator CAMERON: Every Senator? Is that the case? I hear some senators say they like AWAs.
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, but the disadvantage issue is a separate issue.
Senator CAMERON: The disadvantage issue is separate, okay.
CHAIR: Our standing orders of the Senate make it very, very clear: if you need our assistance you will contact us, but I know damn well you won't.
Senator EGGLESTON: This is a very serious matter that we have heard evidence about. I wonder what the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is—the overarching authority for aviation—in terms of the terms and conditions under which crew work? Perhaps that is something the committee should seek some advice about.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: We would also like to know the answer on that—myself, Michael and all our fellow colleagues out there.
Senator EGGLESTON: I am sure you would.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Most definitely. And we welcome it.
Senator EGGLESTON: And if we get advice, we will pass it on to you.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Eggleston. I just want to clarify. When I said, 'I know damn you won't.' I mean you damn well won't need to, because Mr Buchanan is a very responsible employer and I am sure he would love to hear if there is any breakdown in his occupational health and safety systems and to address them.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: Just a couple of things to follow up. Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you told me before in your evidence that you were provided with emails from a number of flight attendants about their complaints. As I understand it, you have permission to provide that to the committee but not necessarily disclosing their names for public consumption. I do not know whether we need to discuss that with the secretary.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Cabin crew have asked me to ask the Senate to consider these emails without publishing their names or making their identities public at any stage.
CHAIR: We can take them in camera.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Okay, thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: There is one final issue, if I may.
CHAIR: Yes, you may.
Senator XENOPHON: Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you gave evidence—when was it?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: 31 March.
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, it is a long time ago. Can you say whether the allocated work you have had has been about the same? You are not suggesting there has been any prejudice against you since that time?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: There have been some questionable moments and times since my last appearance. It is sad that you cannot pinpoint a single person, but the behaviour one would deem quite odd—and I deem it quite odd myself.
Senator XENOPHON: There is an avenue you may want to take up with the committee if you consider you have been prejudiced.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Correct.
This is what I found in Standing Orders, couldn't find any details (after a quick look) of any penalties, though:
Molestation of witnesses
(11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the general sentiment here that the cabin crew who are prepared to bravely expose the disgraceful work conditions placed upon them are absolute champions, a huge congratulations is in order.
A congratulations is also in order for a number of the Senators, again particularly Senator Xenophon who seems to have been born with a sense of fairness, honesty and morality, unlike the majority of other politicians born part human/part pig as their noses are continuously planted in either a trough somewhere or in corporate Australia's asses.
The Australian aviation industry, including CASA require an enema, and Senator Xenophon is the best person to assist in the process of flushing out all the ****e.
Interesting point, Senator Xenophon and Ms Neeteson-Lemkes agreed with this fact - where is CASA in all of this? If these facts are true, why hasn't CASA taken action? Doesn't the safety management system contain the requirement for an operator (airline) to promote a just culture when it comes to safety matters, including reporting? Doesn't the safety management system include 'human factors', of which fatigue, rostering and management actions are all meant to contribute towards an employees well being and safety? Doesn't the statements that Ms Neeteson-Lemkes has raised indicate that rostering in itself is a 'hazard' not being risk assessed or mitigated, and again, hazard identification and risk management is part of the safety managent system which IS a regulatory requirement? So this indeed poses a legitimate and safety concerning question - What is and has CASA been doing? Why are these issues, and most have links to one form of regulation or another, not being oversighted adequately by CASA?
The continual raising of unsafe practices in forums other than CASA's own is proving to be a huge concern, is it not? Why is the regulator continually being indicted for not having a grip on the industry, not knowing about these problems, not addressing these issues, not acting predictively but rather acting reactively time an time again? Surely there is more than enough evidence being produced to paint a picture of an absolutely inadequately run safety authority?
In line with the direction this hearing has taken, the massive amount of evidence being produced, the damning record of safety decline within the overall Australian aviation industry it is time for a royal commission to be launched? Call up the regulator and it's senior management past and present, call up the airline executive management, the safety managers, the Minister, line them up one after the other to explain there way out of these issues. If anybody can give the Australian traveling public and the tens of thousands o aviation workers the answers they deserve it is Senator Xenophon, whom I now officially label 'the peoples champion'.
A congratulations is also in order for a number of the Senators, again particularly Senator Xenophon who seems to have been born with a sense of fairness, honesty and morality, unlike the majority of other politicians born part human/part pig as their noses are continuously planted in either a trough somewhere or in corporate Australia's asses.
The Australian aviation industry, including CASA require an enema, and Senator Xenophon is the best person to assist in the process of flushing out all the ****e.
Interesting point, Senator Xenophon and Ms Neeteson-Lemkes agreed with this fact - where is CASA in all of this? If these facts are true, why hasn't CASA taken action? Doesn't the safety management system contain the requirement for an operator (airline) to promote a just culture when it comes to safety matters, including reporting? Doesn't the safety management system include 'human factors', of which fatigue, rostering and management actions are all meant to contribute towards an employees well being and safety? Doesn't the statements that Ms Neeteson-Lemkes has raised indicate that rostering in itself is a 'hazard' not being risk assessed or mitigated, and again, hazard identification and risk management is part of the safety managent system which IS a regulatory requirement? So this indeed poses a legitimate and safety concerning question - What is and has CASA been doing? Why are these issues, and most have links to one form of regulation or another, not being oversighted adequately by CASA?
The continual raising of unsafe practices in forums other than CASA's own is proving to be a huge concern, is it not? Why is the regulator continually being indicted for not having a grip on the industry, not knowing about these problems, not addressing these issues, not acting predictively but rather acting reactively time an time again? Surely there is more than enough evidence being produced to paint a picture of an absolutely inadequately run safety authority?
In line with the direction this hearing has taken, the massive amount of evidence being produced, the damning record of safety decline within the overall Australian aviation industry it is time for a royal commission to be launched? Call up the regulator and it's senior management past and present, call up the airline executive management, the safety managers, the Minister, line them up one after the other to explain there way out of these issues. If anybody can give the Australian traveling public and the tens of thousands o aviation workers the answers they deserve it is Senator Xenophon, whom I now officially label 'the peoples champion'.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was QF group policy that no crewmember shall operate when fatigue levels have influenced safety levels.
Seeing as safety is a number one priority, why hasn't a risk assessment been completed on JQ's cabin crew rostering practices & associated fatigue levels?
Oh, that's right. They were too busy doing the risk assessment on distraction levels of pilots wearing red ties & grounding another airline.
MC.
Seeing as safety is a number one priority, why hasn't a risk assessment been completed on JQ's cabin crew rostering practices & associated fatigue levels?
Oh, that's right. They were too busy doing the risk assessment on distraction levels of pilots wearing red ties & grounding another airline.
MC.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate recorded and read
I think, the FA 's will probably prove to be the most destructive force of all that day; you feel as if you can believe every thing (give or take a bit) they did not say. It was truly remarkable to watch; the Senators make no bones about it. Clearly, they were sick to the ribs (Abetz excluded) of the rhetoric, spin and slanted arguments, which a careful man, although angry, could not with safety attack.
But gee whiz, they got behind the FA 's. Lay down mi sere– no question.
Perhaps it's simply that there are “no complex issues” at stake. Possibly because they could relate to it. Democracy at it's best, Australian style. Underdog First.
The TWU were very good, Fed Sec ALEA not too shabby at all, the AIPA worth very much more than a cursory reading; but, for mine, the one that did the damage; was easily defended and that the Senators could actually do something about were the FA 's.
If we manage to keep an OZ airline – betcha the manning and fatigue levels are changed - at the express direction of the Senate.
Anyway – well done all, well done indeed.
But gee whiz, they got behind the FA 's. Lay down mi sere– no question.
Perhaps it's simply that there are “no complex issues” at stake. Possibly because they could relate to it. Democracy at it's best, Australian style. Underdog First.
The TWU were very good, Fed Sec ALEA not too shabby at all, the AIPA worth very much more than a cursory reading; but, for mine, the one that did the damage; was easily defended and that the Senators could actually do something about were the FA 's.
If we manage to keep an OZ airline – betcha the manning and fatigue levels are changed - at the express direction of the Senate.
Anyway – well done all, well done indeed.
I'd be surprised if their story isn't in the process of being snapped up by 60 minutes
If they did, they'd get Karl
to do the story and we know who's side he'd take.Laim Bartlett though, he'd be good as he has previously given it to QF in his homw town paper.
I don't think the F/As will be racing off to the media as then they would open themselves to punitive action from the airline. The reason they went to the Senate was because they would be protected under parliamentary privilege. Still very courageous to speak out and not go in-camera but they knew they had a safety net and Jetstar knows it too.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlantis
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will guarantee that no main stream media such as 60 minutes will touch this story from the angle of "poor hard done by flight attendants" ........ "mean bad employer" The corporate world which owns the media is part of the problem not the solution. The cabal of present media moguls have two out of three ownership of newspaper, television and radio stations.They love and support big business because they are big business.Their role is to make big $$$$$, put in and support the governments they want . They do not run exposes of labour practises that those at the top of the corporate world support and endorse.Put another way .......they don't rat on their corporate mates.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to forget the ABC who have a long tradition of tackling the bigger issues via Four Corners and other shows. They are also not afraid to embarrass the govt of the day when necessary.
If ever there was show that needed Chris Masters it is this story that is unfolding.
Agree the FA's were important but also dont forget the gap between the intention of the legislators for the QSA and the Executives. This could come back and bite the company yet.
If ever there was show that needed Chris Masters it is this story that is unfolding.
Agree the FA's were important but also dont forget the gap between the intention of the legislators for the QSA and the Executives. This could come back and bite the company yet.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hell
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue:Self Reporting
The onus is on the employee to recognize and report fatigue.
This means that if the employee recognizes fatigue either in themselves or another employee it must be reported.Failure to do so means that the employee is culpable in the event of a safety related incident.
The reporting of fatigue is to be treated "with compassion and confidentiality".
Report fatigue too often and it will be indicated to you,that in the interests of your well being perhaps you should seek alternative employ.So rather than accept fault with company rostering the blame will apportioned to the employee.
Hence the "toughen up princess" proclamation from above
This means that if the employee recognizes fatigue either in themselves or another employee it must be reported.Failure to do so means that the employee is culpable in the event of a safety related incident.
The reporting of fatigue is to be treated "with compassion and confidentiality".
Report fatigue too often and it will be indicated to you,that in the interests of your well being perhaps you should seek alternative employ.So rather than accept fault with company rostering the blame will apportioned to the employee.
Hence the "toughen up princess" proclamation from above
