PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   End Of Cabin Crew Seniority In Qf Long Haul? (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/286584-end-cabin-crew-seniority-qf-long-haul.html)

RedTBar 10th Aug 2007 07:35

Defcon4,
A long post but very well worth reading and it sums up the situation aptly.:ok:

mrpaxing 11th Aug 2007 01:13

do agree, D4
 
unfortunatly the way it is.:{

flitegirl 11th Aug 2007 02:02

Thanks DC:D

Haven't read something so concise, well written and TRUE for a long time on here. Well said. Your words represent many of us i'm sure.

twiggs 11th Aug 2007 04:42


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
In answer to Willi Bs comments....if you are not happy you dont smile.
This applies to most of QF cabin crew population.

I beg to differ on this point.
In any service industry, we are paid to smile, even if we are not happy.
Most QF cabin crew do this, even though we may feel we are not loved by management.
To say that most QF cabin crew don't smile if they are not happy implies most QF cabin crew are not suited to their jobs.
I believe most QF cabin crew forget about the politics when they are working and do the job as best as they can, sometimes with inferior resources.
It is unfortunate that some QF crew, fortunately a minority, do not make that small effort of smiling no matter what situation they are encountering onboard.

surfside6 11th Aug 2007 06:48

Twiggs
 
The more you post the more it becomes obvious that you are so out of touch with the realities of LH CC that you are indeed irrelevant to any discussion regarding crew

surfside6 11th Aug 2007 11:15

The Myth
 
I find that many (not all) junior crew are unhappy and dont smile.
Most senior crew are happy and hardworking.
They realise that their time is coming to an end and they wont have have to put up with Dixon and his crew much longer.
I think you will find that was Willi B who started talking about unsmiling crew
and not me.
Your contributions to these forums are as relevant as Twiggs.
You represent a majority of ....one.
You never offer anything innovative just mindless commentary on others observations
...and of course the occassional personal dig.
You sir are a small barking dog and the wagon rolls on ...without you.

Le 3rd Homme 11th Aug 2007 11:34

Out of Touch
 
Customer surveys indicate it is people like Midnight 63 who are out of touch.
The reality is you need happy motivated staff who are well resourced to make positive things happen.
QF staff are neither motivated or well resourced.
As has been said they are a soft easy target.
Managers are responsible for the behaviour/performance of their workforce.
Not the other way around.
QF is definitely Animal Farm.
Animal Air certainly has a nice appropriate ring to it

twiggs 11th Aug 2007 12:00


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
The time spent at home is,on average 18 days in 56.Two more days in the same period as a 9 to 5 employee.

How can the average be 18 days when the MINIMUM is 18 days?

Using your example for a typical 4 day LAX:

Originally Posted by DEFCON4
Slip time in foreign ports is now minimal.
4 Day LAX Patterns.
Leave SYD Friday morning...13 hour flight time
Arrive LAX 0630 Local time..awake all night
Go to bed..wake up, eat and then try to get some more sleep
Leave Saturday Night....14 hour flight time.
Arrive Sydney 0630 Monday morning.
Sleep,look after the kids,say hello to your partner and start getting ready to do it again.
For many crew this is their life.

If this is the only trip you do then you will work just over 24 days in 56, last time I checked that was 32 days off.
You made it sound like you had no time in LAX but I think in excess of 36 hours is plenty of time to recover.

Let's not let the truth get in the way of a good winge.

twiggs 11th Aug 2007 12:10


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
The base pay for a 5 year FA is around $52,000 gross.
There are other components that bump this up.
Picture this ...the company forces you onto leave for 3 months on base pay.
You either go broke or get a second job.

How is someone with 5 years going to get forced onto 3 months long service leave when they have not yet reached the minimum 10 years required to utilise it?

Anyone who relies on money beyond their guaranteed basic income to pay their debts is living beyond their means and is therefore a fool.

DEFCON4 11th Aug 2007 13:03

Clarification...Just for Twiggs
 
1.3 months leave....NOT long service
2.A minimum is not exclusive of an average...18 can be both an average and a minimum.
3.The LAX example did not say anything about Minimums or Averages.
It was your idea to exemplify it as multiples.
Try not to take excerpts out of context
Try a remedial reading course.
Perhaps english is not your first language...apologies... perhaps it is.
You did not take issue with the rest of the post..thank you.
Further, our reason for being on an aircraft is SAFETY.
No where in our job description does it specify that we are paid to smile.
Try smiling when you are evacuating 300 people from a burning aircraft after a terrain impact.
We are safety professionals...first and foremost...remember that...SAFETY.
You, and management seem a little blurred about that.
I observe I do not whinge you impertinent little twit

Shlonghaul 11th Aug 2007 13:20


Anyone who relies on money beyond their guaranteed basic income to pay their debts is living beyond their means and is therefore a fool.
twiggs you really should'nt refer to your pin up boy Darth in this way! :eek:

twiggs 11th Aug 2007 14:17


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
1.3 months leave....NOT long service

So what sort of leave are you referring to that people are supposedly being forced onto for 3 months at a time?


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
2.A minimum is not exclusive of an average...18 can be both an average and a minimum.

The only way a minimum can be an average is if all values are the minimum, ie all crew have 18 days off, no more.


Originally Posted by DEFCON4
3.The LAX example did not say anything about Minimums or Averages.
It was your idea to exemplify it as multiples.

You chose the 4 day LAX example to cry about how little rest we get in a slip port in the same breath as saying we only get 18 days off a roster.
So why then can't I use your own example to disprove your spin?



Originally Posted by DEFCON4
No where in our job description does it specify that we are paid to smile.
Try smiling when you are evacuating 300 people from a burning aircraft after a terrain impact.

It may not be in the job description but it is certainly assumed that service industry staff smile whether they are happy or not.

Mate, if you are evacuating 300 people from a BURNING aircraft then I don't think anyone will mind if you don't smile. Funny though, don't think it's ever happened at Qantas (BURNING that is), and that is good enough reason to smile.

lowerlobe 11th Aug 2007 21:33

DEFCON4 and others....Do not take the bait with twiggs because as with some others her only intent is to incite an argument and have the thread closed.

She did not defend cabin crew against Scottydoo or Willie B or managers perspective and only appears to start an argument with crew.This has been shown time and again.

Quote from Twiggsy

In any service industry, we are paid to smile, even if we are not happy.
This is a thinly veiled message from the OFFICE.If you read between the lines it translates to ...

"You are paid to do a job and you are not paid to enjoy it and we do not care if you enjoy it or not"

triadic 12th Aug 2007 00:17

It really is sad that there are people out there that feel this way about their job.

It has been said more than once that the cheapest way to manage (operate) LH FAs is to leave them at home! No wonder they don't want any more!

Under the present cost structure you don't have to be blind freddy to know that they are a terminal race.

The choice is to get real or keep dreaming!!

Shlonghaul 12th Aug 2007 00:57


Funny though, don't think it's ever happened at Qantas (BURNING that is), and that is good enough reason to smile.
Yes it has happened twiggs. In 1960 a Super Constellation crashed on takeoff from Mauritius bursting into flames. The actions of an outstanding longhaul cabin and technical crew evacuating all passengers with six injured including three burned. I suppose that you and your cohorts will say I'm living in the past but that's when the proud tradition of Qantas, it's safety & service was built. Sadly that foundation has been cracked wide open by a bunch of greedy self centred :mad: masquerading as management concerned with only themselves and their next bonus. I have no respect for them and as far as I'm concerned they're so low they could parachute out of a snake's backside and still have room to freefall.

From triadick.........


It really is sad that there are people out there that feel this way about their job.

It's not the job it's those masquerading as management.


It has been said more than once that the cheapest way to manage (operate) LH FAs is to leave them at home!
No matter what happens in the future there will always be crew operating long haul flights!! There's no escaping us!! :E

lowerlobe 12th Aug 2007 01:43

triadic....And I've never seen a post from any pilots talking about the company reducing their pay and conditions.

Why are you isolating cabin crew for trying to protect their conditions?

Shlonghaul is correct, we are there to act when the manure hits the turbine and a few here that seek to deny that fact are the dinosaurs.

twiggs 12th Aug 2007 01:47

Thanks for the history lesson Schlong,
Don't suppose the Connie had 300 people crammed on board requiring evac?

Anyway the whole point was, safety related incidents of this magnitude happen very infrequently at Qantas.
If DEFCON4 can't smile because he/she is waiting for something to happen every time he/she flys, he/she should seek counselling.

lowerlobe 12th Aug 2007 04:21

Shlonghaul..These people in the office never get it do they.:yuk:

It does not matter whether it is 50 or 500 people.There were a lot less crew on the Connie but to them we are nothing but biscuit chuckers.

The frequency of accidents is irrelevant in fact the most recent example of a survivable accident was accident in Canada.The Cabin Crew there did a fantastic job and there was no loss of life.

Twiggsy said...If DEFCON4 can't smile because he/she is waiting for something to happen every time he/she flys, he/she should seek counselling....

Well,Twiggsy if you were crew you would know that everytime you sit in a jump seat YOU SHOULD be expecting the worst and be prepared for it.Thats what we are there for and not to serve some clowns idea of what food is.

prunezeuss 12th Aug 2007 04:43

The Usual Suspects
 
Twiggs et al.never have a creative thought nor are they innovative.
They simply criticize and nitpick regarding semantics or misplaced commas
What sort of idiot advocates wage reductions or is happy when someone else has their wages cut?...
Triadick...try a pussy..... it might help you

cartexchange 12th Aug 2007 04:48

On another note, anyone have any details about that idiot that got caught smuggling all those cartons of smokes into LHR
I believe that he still hasnt been sacked.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35.


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