HH I think BL is referring to carrying a ton of fuel, i.e. 68US to carry a ton to destination, then refer to my post above. So that’s $6.80US per staff pax, or as someone else described it to me: 2 fifths of f:mad:k all!!

the shaman I agree 100% with you: the reasons you state are why we should be able to enjoy staff travel as employee's of the company.........at a reasonable expense.....

J340, don't want to pick your post to pieces, but $6.57, 7 or 8 dollars? I think as I believe I have demonstrated, this is already in the cost of the ticket which I believe is already overpriced. Qf makes a very handy little profit from Staff Travel. The simple matter of fact is the fuel order will not change with an extra couple of staff on, that fuel will be carried, a thimble extra might be burnt but surely that is already covered in the ticket cost!!!!

It is obvious that this increase in ticket cost is only meant as a money making exercise for Qf management and as someone else mentioned to further disengaged already very disengaged staff so some (ie the ones that they want to) will think even closer about leaving....:ugh:




:uhoh:





:ok: :ok: :ok: :uhoh:

I've been led to believe that QF covers cost, including FBT on QEB tickets only.

I'm not sure why everyone is getting upset. Even at the new price it is still considerably cheaper than a last minute ticket off the net sites, and for most upgradeable to business!

Things can't be that bad at the rat if that's all you've got to complain about.

Rescue 1
 

You need to read some of the other forums/posts.
There is a lot to complain about at the rat:
Wages
Conditions
Service
Resources
Manpower levels
Being treated as the "enemy" by management.
Fear and Tyrany reign supreme.
This surcharge is just more of the same.
Stafftravel generates around an $12m net profit for the rat.
Money for Jam.

We all know what lovely, warm generous people QF are.......for 11 years NJ staff flying qantas tailed a/c with qantas passengers and qantas would rather fly with empty seats than have an NJS staffer on board, even at ID75 :mad:
and don't say they are only contractors, plenty of people get cheap QF travel who are alot further removed from QF.

When...
 

I am just trying to pinpoint a time when everything at Qantas began to go south.
Any ideas?
I think it was around 1998.

The arrival of the "Bow Tied" one along with his domestic experts!!
:\

You are right
 

They brought with them their zero skill set for running an international airline.
All the professionals who knew what was what have gone.
This business about dimming lights for take off and landing is another piece of TAA stupidity.
QF was once a leader and innovator.
Now its just a third rate follower without a clue.
Sorry, it does have one clue:
How to treat its people with absolute contempt.

I thought it provided more power to the engines...:confused:


:E :ouch:

"This business about dimming lights for take off and landing is another piece of TAA stupidity."

------------------------------

The risk assessment which WASN'T carried out for the A330 [and other a/c types] has left a significant portion of the cabin out of view beyond 4 rows from the CC who are legally required to monitor it............?

Thats what happens when you have a significant proportion of the airline run by a marketing department devoid of ANY operational understanding.

How lucky Qantas is that it effectively "owns" the regulator.

Until the chickens come home to roost.................

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

Cunning,

I think the whole staff travel thing (or lack of it) with NJS is coming from NJS - not QF or other airlines.

Remember back when AN and other airlines offered ID travel to NJS employees when approached, but on the provision it went through the company staff travel dept? Well that was the end of it. NJS strongly told everyone to forget about it, as it would involve employing a few more staff travel officers, and they were not about to do that for the good of staff morale!

Tight arses!

cunninglinguist,

MAM casuals who fly on QF mainline aircraft and have done for 3 or 4 years can't get any form of staff travel and they sometimes do more than often the same hours as full timers, where's the incentive? because full time definately isn't around the corner for them.

Does anyone know if we will have to pay this tax on Supernumery's? meaning our once free flight per month will end up costing $22 or whatever?

Oz

Oz CC

The surcharge is applicable to Long Service "free" trips so that would indicate that it also applies to "Supernumery's" (which only applies to domestic cabin crew as it was a TN condition that QF inherited). Don't forget to add the 10% GST onto the fuel surcharge - a return domestic flight incurs a total surcharge of $48.40.

Now lets see, a cosy little business lunch for "Geoff and Margaret"

Ah yes-a family of 4 return trip on any domestic route is $48.40 x 4 = $193.60- that should cover it !!!

Oh forgot the tip -better airfreight the dog as well !!
:*

HH, sorry I wasnt clear on that, as Dr Reedalldabooks mentioned, that was the cost of carrying the tonne. (I guess a rather inaccurate firgure in hindsight for comparing the cost/benefit of the $22 surcharge, as the fuel/$/tonne to carry figure can vary quite dramatically per sector based on local fuel costs.)

Capt cynacal, lets not forget that Geoff, offloads full fare first class pax(already issued with boarding passes) for both his travel and daughters travel on ID90. You\'d better factor that cost into the price of an ID90 ticket for him.

90% of the time the fuel load is decided on before staff have been onloaded. Over the years I have not seen a crew increase their fuel because of onloading staff. So whether the staff are on or off the same fuel is carried. This applies for both dom and int travel.

BUT.....
 

dear rammel, more fuel will be burned if staff are carried.:confused:

Pax Increase Burn Rate
 

Burn Rate would increase by about 300mls per Staff Pax

Yes I understand that the staff member will have an effect on fuel burn however small it may be. But this would also be absorbed by the usual number of no shows which happen every day. The only flights I have seen which have very little if any no shows are the flights to NRT.

Overall the increase of fuel burn is unlikely to go over the burn that was already planned for.

not quite staff travel
 

Back to dimming lights????

Why is this?? I can almostunderstand the sunshades up etc as it provides more light out for making it more visible, even though the strobes are seen long before the cabin lights or is this a myth too. but what is the point of dimming the lights. Some airlines do, some do not. Is it so that in the event of an emergency and less light is available your eyes are already adjusted???

Thanks

J:hmm: