Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qantas terminates long haul cabin crew agreement, demands more flexibility

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

Qantas terminates long haul cabin crew agreement, demands more flexibility

Old 21st Jan 2022, 02:55
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: The street
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Agree. Much of the of the prior decision by FWA Australia mentions the effect of Covid. “There is no doubt, and it was accepted by the FAAA, that the COVID-19 Pandemic has had a significant impact on Qantas.” “The devastating impact of the COVID-19 crisis”. “Qantas in a position where it can respond to the uncertainty and challenges of international travel and the COVID-19 Pandemic”. “Ms Yangoyan was subject to cross examination on this aspect and despite some concessions, I accept her evidence regarding Qantas’ position that it requires greater flexibility in EBA11 to respond to the uncertainty of travel due to the Pandemic”.”I accept Qantas has advised its employees that the flexibilities and operational capacity that its key claims would provide is essential to the recommencement of international travel[due to the pandemic]”.
Qantas not wasting the time limited pandemic and that having a critical impact on the judges decision.
FightDeck is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 03:21
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
So much crap written. Look at how many times Andrew David and Qantas say COVID in offical communication.
Qantas only able to pull this off whilst COVID is such a big issue. Omicron wave will soon end and Qantas will run out of justification.
Don’t waste a crisis. Trying to tie this to other unrelated issues is just misinformation.
Yes and no.

The foundations for this were put in place years ago when the LH flight attendants decided on an industrial strategy of 'pulling up the ladder behind them'. The current legal/industrial framework has been in place for quite a long time, and the FAAA should have known the risks of them being a 'targeted' workforce and that COVID would most likely end up with FWC and courts making 'policy decisions'. They should have taken a different approach to negotiations that acknowledged these risks. Instead, I suspect that they they told members what they wanted to hear, rather than the industrial reality.

Last edited by theheadmaster; 21st Jan 2022 at 04:44.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 05:03
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 1,074
Received 776 Likes on 207 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
Chris, Gordon was suggesting an industry wide strike
In my defence Keg, I do believe I said I would never suggest it

gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 05:32
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,569
Received 77 Likes on 47 Posts
Keeping current on one Boeing and two Airbus types would be manageable for cabin crew, especially for those already flying the A380 and B787.

Unfortunately the cabin crew are in the same position as most other CC at unionized legacy airlines when these airlines have to compete with low cost and Middle East airlines. Their terms and conditions stand out as being well ahead and are in the firing line when costs need to be cut. The baggage handlers got screwed over last year and it's time for management to move onto the next target.

Personally, I would be more flexible to maintain my income level especially given the current situation.

Realistically, the days of highly paid unionised cabin crew are numbered unless the traveling public is willing to pay higher fares. This is only likely on routes to North America where there is little competition and the US airlines are in the same position. Any route with a ME or Asian airline available will be tough.
krismiler is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 06:06
  #45 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay
In my defence Keg, I do believe I said I would never suggest it

Keg is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 06:11
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 789
Received 71 Likes on 39 Posts
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
So much crap written. Look at how many times Andrew David and Qantas say COVID in offical communication.
Qantas only able to pull this off whilst COVID is such a big issue. Omicron wave will soon end and Qantas will run out of justification.
Don’t waste a crisis. Trying to tie this to other unrelated issues is just misinformation.
He is a miserable little man who has tried his luck at many outfits & is now firmly entrenched under the direction of another miserable little man whose aim is to destroy any union agreement that he can just like his little mate Willie Walsh who went down the same path at BA.
Like somebody else has mentioned,there are plenty of former cabin crew now doing other jobs who will now realise what a wise move it was to seek alternate employment & for many who were hoping to fly again this will help them make the decision to work elsewhere & maybe get appreciated for the effort they put in every day instead of wondering what is next in the continual agenda of trying to screw the workforce by a group of money hungry self indulgent so called executives who try to convince everyone how tough they are doing it.
blubak is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 08:34
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by blubak
He is a miserable little man who has tried his luck at many outfits & is now firmly entrenched under the direction of another miserable little man whose aim is to destroy any union agreement that he can just like his little mate Willie Walsh who went down the same path at BA.
Like somebody else has mentioned,there are plenty of former cabin crew now doing other jobs who will now realise what a wise move it was to seek alternate employment & for many who were hoping to fly again this will help them make the decision to work elsewhere & maybe get appreciated for the effort they put in every day instead of wondering what is next in the continual agenda of trying to screw the workforce by a group of money hungry self indulgent so called executives who try to convince everyone how tough they are doing it.

What's the problem?
All BA Cabin Crew operate on Long Haul and European rotes. Qualified on A320 A380 777 787. A350. Usually restricted to three types at any one period.
Just a bit more study in the classroom.
Safely rostered for example, Paris and back one day in an A320, and perhaps Las Vegas next trip in a B777.

Last edited by cessnapete; 22nd Jan 2022 at 15:00.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2022, 08:50
  #48 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by cessnapete
What's the problem?
All BA Cabin Crew operate on Long Haul and European rotes. Qualified on A320 A380 777 787. Usually restricted to three types at any one period.
Just a bit more study in the classroom.
Safely rostered for example, Paris and back one day in an A320, and perhaps Las Vegas next trip in a B777.
As Qantas F/As used to do in the 90s and 2000s where they operated the 767(238, 338, 336), 747 (400 in Pacific and Kangaroo route configs, and Classic), A330 (200/300).

Their ability to easily train onto the A380 and then the 787 was taken away from them when QF recruited new staff for those operations and prevented those legacy crew from operating those aircraft. This is an issue of Qantas’ making but they’re expecting the F/As to sacrifice everything in solving it.
Keg is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 02:34
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 40 Likes on 18 Posts
Interesting still no upbeat yammer post with cringy gif response's.
unobtanium is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 02:38
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
As Qantas F/As used to do in the 90s and 2000s where they operated the 767(238, 338, 336), 747 (400 in Pacific and Kangaroo route configs, and Classic), A330 (200/300).

Their ability to easily train onto the A380 and then the 787 was taken away from them when QF recruited new staff for those operations and prevented those legacy crew from operating those aircraft. This is an issue of Qantas’ making but they’re expecting the F/As to sacrifice everything in solving it.
Not sure if it is completely accurate to describe the situation of being easily trained on other aircraft 'being taken away from them'. I believe it was actually 'given away' by the FAAA, hence my description of the 'pull the ladder up behind you' industrial strategy of keeping your conditions and allowing new-hires to be employed on lower conditions. That decision was always going to end up with them being outnumbered and marginalised at some point in the future.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 03:07
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NQLD
Age: 38
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
So it seems to be a bit of fault on the FA union side but also a lot to do with the obvious strategy being employed by QF.

First off can I say anyone (or union rep) using the argument that it’s “unsafe” to operate across multiple fleets, looses the debate immediately. It’s pretty clear from this thread and doing “the pub test” that most reasonable people can see straight through it. It’s a non issue. The safety risk is negligible.

The real issue seems to result from history. As others have stated a group of FA’s seem to have been slowly isolated through time to the point that they are now restricted to one fleet type. Clearly they are happy to work on multiple types, they seem to have done so in the past. But (it seems to me) the bigger issue is they don’t want to give up their terms and conditions.

This IMHO is where unions can fail sometimes. A continuous focus on the conditions for a single group (senior FA’s or pilots) to the detriment of other staff doing the same job, always seems to end up this way. Isolated and alone. The union may very well have “done their job” and maintained the conditions these FA’s enjoy, but in doing so have made them extremely vulnerable to a drastic change in their EBA. Or being fired.

Qantas is undoubtedly following a deliberate strategy here. But what do you expect? HR departments exist to manage these things, so it would be incredibly naïve of all of us to think there’s is NOT a game being played out.

HOWEVER, we are all subject to various market forces whether we like it or not. Union represented or not, when one airline “innovates” and become more productive, other airlines are forced to respond. Now I’m not saying this is only in relation to pay cuts, it could be fuel savings, IT systems or reduced maintenance requirements on new types. It’s the whole picture. There will always be a continuous process of change as the advantages ebb and flow between competing airlines.

I’m sorry to say but FA’s are relatively unskilled labour. Same with ground staff. Yes training is required. Yes attracting good people is important (salary IS a part of this). Experience on the job can play a part as well. But only to a point. If a reasonable training system exists that produces a consistent skill level for new staff, it’s not as critical to pay more to retain staff. That’s just reality.

The advantage pilots and engineers enjoy is the time it takes to make us “employable”. We get paid more because we have a skill set that is harder to source. Notice I didn’t say “more useful” or “we are better than you” (cause we are all just people trying to make a living), just harder to acquire. It’s no different to other qualified professionals. Do you want to earn more in your chosen career? Upgrade your skills. Invest in yourself!!

It’s also a warning to the rest of us pilots. Yes we should work to “improve our lot”. But we also need to be flexible to the outside reality of the wider industry. If whatever company you work for ends up loosing money and going bankrupt, it doesn’t matter how good your EBA is. To that point though, we also shouldn’t trade everything away in some vain hope we can save a company when the management is clearly incapable or the business model is broken. There’s a balance to be found, all staff in a relevant company play a part. A company is successful when all the staff and managers are able to move forward as a team.

Good luck to this group of FA’s, but I think in all honesty the future is not looking promising. Either way there’ll be a change forced on them.
aviation_enthus is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 05:35
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: AUS
Posts: 150
Received 27 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by aviation_enthus
So it seems to be a bit of fault on the FA union side but also a lot to do with the obvious strategy being employed by QF.

First off can I say anyone (or union rep) using the argument that it’s “unsafe” to operate across multiple fleets, looses the debate immediately. It’s pretty clear from this thread and doing “the pub test” that most reasonable people can see straight through it. It’s a non issue. The safety risk is negligible.

The real issue seems to result from history. As others have stated a group of FA’s seem to have been slowly isolated through time to the point that they are now restricted to one fleet type. Clearly they are happy to work on multiple types, they seem to have done so in the past. But (it seems to me) the bigger issue is they don’t want to give up their terms and conditions.

This IMHO is where unions can fail sometimes. A continuous focus on the conditions for a single group (senior FA’s or pilots) to the detriment of other staff doing the same job, always seems to end up this way. Isolated and alone. The union may very well have “done their job” and maintained the conditions these FA’s enjoy, but in doing so have made them extremely vulnerable to a drastic change in their EBA. Or being fired.

Qantas is undoubtedly following a deliberate strategy here. But what do you expect? HR departments exist to manage these things, so it would be incredibly naïve of all of us to think there’s is NOT a game being played out.

HOWEVER, we are all subject to various market forces whether we like it or not. Union represented or not, when one airline “innovates” and become more productive, other airlines are forced to respond. Now I’m not saying this is only in relation to pay cuts, it could be fuel savings, IT systems or reduced maintenance requirements on new types. It’s the whole picture. There will always be a continuous process of change as the advantages ebb and flow between competing airlines.

I’m sorry to say but FA’s are relatively unskilled labour. Same with ground staff. Yes training is required. Yes attracting good people is important (salary IS a part of this). Experience on the job can play a part as well. But only to a point. If a reasonable training system exists that produces a consistent skill level for new staff, it’s not as critical to pay more to retain staff. That’s just reality.

The advantage pilots and engineers enjoy is the time it takes to make us “employable”. We get paid more because we have a skill set that is harder to source. Notice I didn’t say “more useful” or “we are better than you” (cause we are all just people trying to make a living), just harder to acquire. It’s no different to other qualified professionals. Do you want to earn more in your chosen career? Upgrade your skills. Invest in yourself!!

It’s also a warning to the rest of us pilots. Yes we should work to “improve our lot”. But we also need to be flexible to the outside reality of the wider industry. If whatever company you work for ends up loosing money and going bankrupt, it doesn’t matter how good your EBA is. To that point though, we also shouldn’t trade everything away in some vain hope we can save a company when the management is clearly incapable or the business model is broken. There’s a balance to be found, all staff in a relevant company play a part. A company is successful when all the staff and managers are able to move forward as a team.

Good luck to this group of FA’s, but I think in all honesty the future is not looking promising. Either way there’ll be a change forced on them.
Very well said. I think many of us know stories of amazing EBAs that've ended in tears when the respective workforce is eventually sidelined. Sometimes less is more in the long run, whether people like it or not.
pinkpanther1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 06:00
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 630
Received 168 Likes on 54 Posts
Originally Posted by aviation_enthus
This IMHO is where unions can fail sometimes. A continuous focus on the conditions for a single group (senior FA’s or pilots) to the detriment of other staff doing the same job, always seems to end up this way. Isolated and alone.
You make a lot of good points in your post but I do wonder about the part above. Given 97% of the LH cabin crew voted NO then clearly it wasn’t just a single (minority) group who were unhappy with the offer. Clearly the QCCA/World Fleet crew were rather unimpressed with the offer also.

Anyone know what the main sticking point was for those crew, beyond the obvious pay freeze?
Beer Baron is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 07:09
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
Anyone know what the main sticking point was for those crew, beyond the obvious pay freeze?

Sparrows. is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 08:19
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Purely a time based decision by upper management. They know the peak of this crisis isn’t going to last long so they can’t afford to put it to another vote and waste that time. Frustrating for all airlines atm.
piston broke again is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 09:13
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Given that no crew have been recruited since ?2008 to QAL and there have been multiple VR offers in that time, surely there can't be that many left in this pool?
IE they are quite outnumbered by crew on the new contract?
lc_461 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 10:33
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 2,496
Received 351 Likes on 131 Posts
Originally Posted by krismiler
Realistically, the days of highly paid unionised cabin crew are numbered unless the traveling public is willing to pay higher fares. This is only likely on routes to North America where there is little competition and the US airlines are in the same position. Any route with a ME or Asian airline available will be tough.
What he said. Being a flight attendant is not a $100k a year job, and it shouldn’t be. If the remaining cabin crew think they can possibly maintain what they get now without any flexibility, they’re dreaming.
morno is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 11:47
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by morno
What he said. Being a flight attendant is not a $100k a year job, and it shouldn’t be. If the remaining cabin crew think they can possibly maintain what they get now without any flexibility, they’re dreaming.
Why shouldn't being a flight attendant be a 100K a year job?
Mr Proach is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 12:02
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 110
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by lc_461
Given that no crew have been recruited since ?2008 to QAL and there have been multiple VR offers in that time, surely there can't be that many left in this pool?
IE they are quite outnumbered by crew on the new contract?
20% apparently
Sparrows. is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2022, 13:52
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 508
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Proach
Why shouldn't being a flight attendant be a 100K a year job?
Because it’s always better to cut people down than honour your commitment to them. These people agreed to the contract they were offered, no-one else can ever join it. They should be allowed to serve out their time, they’re hardly going to be the straw that breaks the kangaroo’s back!
StudentInDebt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.