Sickly Qantas cabin crews (Crikey)
 

crikey.com.au
11 January 2005

Sickly Qantas cabin crews
Three Fed Up Frequent Flyers
and one Happy Camper

As one frequent flyer puts it, "for cabin service, Qantas comes pretty close to the bottom of my list".

A frequent flyer writes:

A depressing, but regular, feature on Crikey in the recent past has been the whinging and whining articles by Qantas cabin crew about how badly they are done by and what a terrible employer they work for.

This article goes someway towards putting the behaviour of this lot into perspective.

On Christmas Eve a Qantas A330 Airbus due to depart from Sydney for Perth was delayed because the cabin crew was one flight attendant short. The reason was that the flight attendant had rung in sick at the last minute.

This sudden sickness by cabin crew is known as a “roster adjustment sick day”. In other words, if a flight attendant does not like a roster day he or she simply calls in sick at the last minute. The endemic level of this rort run by Qantas cabin crew is highlighted by the fact that Qantas was not able to find one healthy flight attendant replacement on reserve in Sydney who was able to fill the roster.

A330 Airbus’s have 10 cabin crew so one might well ask why one short would hold up the entire flight. The answer is that the aircraft was fully booked and Qantas flight attendants will not crew a full aircraft without a full crew. The flight attendants’ union does, however, have discretion and could have allowed the flight to depart with 9 rather than 10 flight attendants.

Being Christmas Eve and all, it might have been expected that in the Christmas spirit the flight attendants’ union may have had the decency to allow the passengers to spend their planned evening and Christmas day with their families and friends in Perth. It was after all the rostered attendants who were all too sick spending an un-rostered Christmas with their families that had caused the problem.

It was not to be. The union said no. To satisfy the flight attendants’ union, 20 passengers were kicked off the flight and it eventually departed with vacant seats in both business and economy.

This incident brings to mind the scam run by the Ansett domestic flight attendants before that airline went belly up.

Having leased Boeing 747s for its new international route, Ansett ran one or two on the Sydney to Perth route prior to going into service on the international routes. Cabin crew had been specially trained for the 747s however the domestic flight attendants’ union refused to allow them onto the domestic run without using domestic flight attendants.

Ansett eventually capitulated to the blackmail and each flight was crewed with its trained international flight attendants while a full 747 cabin crew of untrained domestic flight attendants sat up in first class and passengered both ways; attracting full pay and allowances.

The truth of the matter is if Qantas were to undertake professional surveys of their passengers it would quickly learn that overwhelmingly, its cabin crew are viewed as rude, unhelpful and lazy.

Frankly, for my money, the sooner Geoff Dixon finds a way of getting rid of those flight attendants who apparently hate their job, hate their boss and hate their passengers, the better.

Meanwhile, another frequent flyer adds to these comments on Qantas:

As a constant international traveler, utilizing both the Star Alliance and One World networks, I fly on most of the major airlines sooner or later. For cabin service, Qantas comes pretty close to the bottom of my list. For all its carefully cultivated image as the nation's flag carrier, it's an airline totally lacking in style. Its meals, at least in economy, are awful. The cabin crew often seem more interested in nattering among themselves than in being attentive to passengers. Increasingly it's behaving like the near-monopoly it is within Australia. It is treating its frequent flyers with contempt, having just devalued their hard-won points. I fly Qantas only when I have no other choice, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.

I have a vivid memory of being in a Qantas flight about to depart Singapore, when passengers in window seats near me were being rained on by condensation seeping through the air-conditioning ducts. Two complained to a cabin attendant. One was brusquely given a blanket to put on her sopping seat as a solution to her problem. The other was berated by the attendant, on the grounds that if Qantas waited for the ducts to dry themselves out, it would delay departure, and was this passenger so inconsiderate as to want to inconvenience everyone else by holding up the plane?

Let's be fair. On one or two occasions Qantas ground staff have gone out of their way to rearrange my travel when bad weather messed up flight schedules in Europe, giving me some much appreciated free upgrades in the process. That's the kind of thing travelers remember, and which is repaid in spades in customer loyalty. Unfortunately, such courtesy on the ground doesn't seem to be reflected in the air.

Since Qantas don't seem to be much interested in customer feedback, perhaps Crikey might encourage the establishment of a complaint website, along the lines of www.untied.com, where customers of United Airlines are able to document their unpleasant experiences. It seems to have had some effect on the perpetually bankrupt carrier, who in my experience has finally begun to lift their game a little.

R.E.

In addition to these comments, the following letter was sent to The Australian Financial Review letter section and to Crikey:

The bleating by bloated Qantas General Manager, John Borghetti, (letters AFR), are becoming tiresome and repetitive. The latest batch of awards it congratulates itself on receiving - from Luxury Travel Magazine - are as meaningless as Virgin Blue's award from OAG - Official Airline Guides. Only awards from Skytrax or Business Traveller Magazine are actually voted by the shiny bums on the seats, not BOUGHT by the Airlines advertising.

QF has slipped to PR or UA, NW standards. Even TG and MH are now well in front. Singapore, BA, Virgin Atlantic, Emirates and Gulf Air leave it for dead. Its P class, denoting Premium, (ostentatious to the end at QF), - really a poor mans C Class, does not now come up to Hawaiian Airlines Business Class standards.

Is it any wonder that most seasoned business travellers now fly to the US via the Island State of Singapore with SQ, - in all three classes. Their customer service, 'can do' attitude, rest room cleanliness on board - (QF T/dollies don't clean), airport lounges, FF scheme, quality of F& B, amenities, seat/bed comfort, library, audio and video systems, are all World class and light years ahead of what Geoff Dixon and Neil Perry would throw our way.

SQ must be given full access to the US market ex Australia - and fast.

Zac C. Zussino

However, as this New Year's day traveller points out, it’s not all bad at Qantas:

As someone that travels a bit, I've experienced everything from good to ordinary service from Qantas staff, but credit where credit's due to the staff that looked after the CityFlyer flight I was on to Sydney on New Year's day.

The guy looking after check in was genuinely friendly and conversational, even wished me a happy birthday after checking my driver's license.

Even the Melbourne Airport security officer who "randomly" selected me for an explosives scan was quite nice.

And the cabin crew on the aircraft were great. Good and genuinely friendly service, with one of the cabin crew wandering around constructing party balloon animals for passengers. Really nice touch. The plane was clean, the flight uneventful (unlike the return trip to Melbourne in high winds and one of the roughest landings I have ever experienced) the kids were well looked after, and we left and arrived on time.

Like I said above, it's not always like this, but (especially on a day when you would normally expect a few late scratchings from the Qantas roster) the staff and flight crew on duty this day were fantastic.

Chris

==========================================

And who exactly is "A Frequent Flier Writes".

Sounds more like a management stooge style of frequent flier who bumps the revenue pax out of J/C and P/C to me.

This old chestnut has been done to death.

If it was a domestic configured A330-300, then 10 flight attendants are the CASA specified minimum.

Taking passengers off would have allowed it to operate with nine F/A's.

Notwithstanding any other complaints, I suspect "A Frequent Flyer" is ignorant of these requirements and the F/A's in this case are being unfairly criticised.

I also bet Crikey.com.au would not publish this.

If Qantas wish to crew their aircraft with minimum crew then sh!t happens. SQ (in my days) carried 2 flight attendants more than the minimum required by the Civil Aviation Authority Singapore. This of course was to keep in line with their ethos of superior service to the customer but - get the idea now Dicko ?

They don't crew to the minimum. Domestic configured -200's have 10 to a minimum of 9 and the -300's have 11 to a minimum of 10.

So how exactly does Crikey know that this was a 'roster adjustment'? Could the flight attendant, just possibly, have actually gotten sick?

Methinks someone's trying just a bit too hard here - and setting themselves up to look silly in the process.

The Perth Xmas eve flight had nothing to do with an f/a going sick and even if it did, cabin crew are just like everyone else, we are entilted to go sick, yes shock horror we get sick at Xmas eve and we have sick leave provisions in our EBA, just like the rest of the world. Maybe the frequent flyer should be taking their issue up with Qantas human resources, its not the flight attendants fault that crew resources are just not available thanks to Dixon's cost cutting.

Gee, no one here is paranoid about the crap QF service and the unionized rorts being worked into the system.

Come on!!!! are we honestly saying anything we didnt know.
We can argue all we want about how many flight attendants etc are on what.........and weather we want to admit it or not on here! (nearly everyone in the aviation community knows) how over paid, underworked the qantas FA's are!!!! and to top it off we also know that most people (especially those in the buisness community) are fully aware of the very very sub standard service that Qantas FA's give COMPARED to those of other carriers.
"Dont take my word for it, see the survey's and ask around th buisness community."
The funny thing is, they can whinge, kick up a fuss about certain conditions etc etc but the writing is on the wall. This is a group (and let's be very blunt) a group of people doing a job that DOES NOT require a skill level or pre education to fullfill the job requirements. Something that is proven around the world with all the new carriers. The old school thinking will be forceably changed even if they dont want to admit it, and Dixon and management know it. Do we really think a flight attendant CS deserves to get $70 000+. I think we all know the answer to that. And so do management. The gravy train wreck is fast approaching Qantas in many many areas..........and the FA's is one of them.

I believe the Inflight Service that Virgin Blue offers is excellent..........................;)

Conflict?

The management say that Qantas continues to win gongs for service for its International carrier.

Me, I believe the International arm of Qantas is a remarkable business bringing Australians home, and visitors to our shores with an Australian flavour. Many people over the years have said that they feel that they are HOME once they set foot on the Flying Kangaroo and hear "Gday".

If the Gulf carriers and SQ have their way we may be reduced to a domestic airline. Why don't we all compete on a level playing field with the same subsidies and depreciation rules?

This is the Australian face of international relations. Support it, keep it alive and make sure that your culture is represented in the global community.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I have no prolem with Flight Attendants earning $70ky plus, providing that they are earning the money. You will never hear a passenger complain about good service, or the salary of the person providing it. Unfortunately, this is a point long since lost on the FAAA.

It is high time that either the FAAA woke up to reality, as the attitudes of its members fall further out of step with the rest of the world, so the pressure to rectify the situation increases on Australian airlines.

Ironically, they complain when Qantas establishes bases in Bangkok and London, yet surely in part they realise this is an attempt to improve service standards.

One can only hope sanity prevails before more jobs are exported.

I think it would be safe to say Geoff Dixon is the problem. The staff make the airline, and Dixon is screwing them into the ground. It may make the bottom line look good for a while, but it won't be long before the whole place self destructs!

Its a bit rich to blame all the woes of the company on the flight attendants.

I would be looking at the death by a thousand cuts and pillaging by the executive.

Try doing the job on longhaul for a few years and then tell us how underworked you are.

Captain F,

You are spot on!

All we hear from management is how tough the market is, how tough the airline is doing it, and how high our labour costs are. In other words, QF staff are just a drain on the beloved shareholder's bottom line - nothing more. A throwaway thanks at Christmas time and a free pocket diary just don't cut it IMO.

You can only hear so much of this before it begins to affect how you feel about your employers (who incidentally are usually reaping huge bonuses from the company's record performance)!!

So if the QF F/As are finding it harder to smile when their conditions are continualy under scrutiny then it does not surprise me at all. Sadly, if this trend continues, it will just give management even more ammunition in wanting to remove them for cheaper (foreign based?) cabin crew.

PS - I would take a lot of what Crikey says with a grain of salt. I remember a few months back, a Crikey report about commuting QF cabin crew getting FREE flights to travel to work. Complete bollocks and indicative of an organisation with an anti-QF (and particularly anti-QF cabin crew) bent.

:yuk: :yuk:

Com'on Three Bars... there's not much difference between free and staff concession or supernumary chits.

Correct but in the context of the original Crikey article, it was a VERY big difference to how the article panned out.

There are two sides to this coin. I remember a 744 going empty to LAX a couple of years back due to short by two crew members even though the pax ratio works out. FAAA screamed about lack of 'coverage' for sick leave over the chrissie period. The company meanwhile screamed about the 400% rise in sick leave for trips that were away from home over the Chrissie period.

Two sides to that coin and they were both right to a certain extent. As to this crikey story, I'd bet money that they've got a few important details incorrect!

Wages
 

Two happy accidents are responsible for FA wages:the floating of the Australian Dollar and the (Forced) introduction of the Bid System in 1988.Prior to these two events being a steward or stewardess meant having a second job to make ends meet.An FA does not on average earn $70k.Superannuable salary is around $43k.Very few CSM's earn over $100k...not if they want to have a wife and a homelife.Spend 7 months a year in an aluminium can,jetlagged off your scone for the other five.......worry about the long term effects of accumulated exposure to radiation and a dozen other detrimental aspects of flying and you are essentially being compensated for the 15 years of your life that you will miss when you die early.
Being vomitted on,abused,cleaning excrement off toilet floors(etc.etc) is not my idea of a glamourous overpaid life.Cabin Crew are not machines.
Next time someone has a medical problem on board a QF aircraft remember it will be a Cabin Crew member who saves your butt...and you won't read about that.

From Wagenet, CSMs are on about $75K plus overtime for a 200 hour divisor (Junior 767 F/Os work about a 220-240 divisor using the F/A way of calculating hours!). Considering that most F/As claim allowances when going for a loan, I'd reckon that'd put an extra $15-20 on the figure. It doesn't take much O/T to push that figure over $100K for CSMs.

Also from Wagenet, the hourly pay rate for F/As is listed as about $45. Using the same numbers as above, that comes to about $58K plus the O/T. Of course, the divisor can decrease at times so you have to knock off (say) 10% or so but the numbers still crunch the same way.

Whether they deserve it isn't my point although it may be others!

Not many techies user 'superannuable' pay when discussing what we earn. For me I just go with the 'gross' amount on the pay slip each year- that happens to include the allowances too.

Anyway.....the point is the pendulum swings both ways and the odds are that Crikey got it wrong (again!).

Wagenet..Wrong
 

Wagenet appears to be incorrect....case in point Fa's earn (QF)$38/hr gross(company figures and my wife's payslip))Most banks don't accept allowances as part of your income as they are so variable.
The aircraft going to LAX 2 years ago empty was short 4 crew and this had been known for almost 2 weeks before departure.A new school of FAs was about to graduate(not to mention 6 line managers being available on ground duty) and it was suggested by the FAAA that some of the graduates may wish to forego their 2 two days off after graduation and crew the aircraft the following day.The company refused out of pure bloody mindedness.