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.

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.

In my defence Keg, I do believe I said I would never suggest it :}

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.

:ok: :D :}

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.

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.

Interesting still no upbeat yammer post with cringy gif response's.

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.

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.

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?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ec78a8731.jpeg

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.

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?

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?

20% apparently

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!

Exactly. Entry level unskilled FIFO job would easily get that with much better roster stability. Time away from home, long shifts, night shifts, weekends etc, a premium for this job is a given. Just the fact of constantly dealing with moronic passengers, I wouldn’t do it for twice that.

That's where I find it amusing when management start bleating about how the terms of an EBA is killing them. Do they not know what the initials stand for. It is an AGREEMENT, usually reached after protracted BARGAINING. It means both sides said yes.They always seem surprised and put out that the other side wants them to stick to their side of the agreement when they decide they now want to say no.

Agreements are not open ended, they have fixed terms. The maximum term for an agreement is four years. The terms of an agreement continue past the expiry date until the Commission replaces or terminates the agreement. In this case, there was bargaining for a new agreement that has resulted in Qantas applying for the agreement to be terminated. The FAAA legal team should know these provisions in the Act and notified members of the risk of not coming to an agreement.

Hasnt it always been the same i.e.when it suits,its good but when it doesnt,its a militant union that doesnt want to negotiate!
I personally know a couple of short serving intl flt attendants who havent flown since the pandemic started but have found employment elsewhere & right now,after seeing what is in store for them have decided they will stay in the jobs they have,they just couldnt be bothered being front line workers with a company that thinks they own them & continually want more for less.

I love these types of comments.

Yet if anyone dared suggest a pilot is not worth $400k+ there would be a Pprune uprising…..

Yes and the days of highly paid middle management and outsized bonuses should therefore also be numbered unless the travelling public is willing to pay higher fares.

If HR want to terminate an agreement, terminate all salary contracts, bonus entitlements, option awards etc for managers. Make everyone start from scratch, based on the current 'COVID environment'. When the good times return, and they will, guess who'll be 'winning'. It won't be the suckers on an agreement.

The salary we receive is an indication of how hard it is to replace us,

Take someone off the street and two weeks later they can be line training as cabin crew on an aircraft. A week later they are checked to line. They may spend some time away from home, for which they will be paid extra. They most certainly will work weekends and public holidays.

ENTRY level, UNSKILLED earning $100 K a year. Can you post a link?

Mining staff are on site for maybe two weeks, working 12 hour shifts for their swing, not quite like being cabin crew.

I certainly don’t think that a pilot is worth $400K+ either.

Why don’t I think a flight attendant should be a $100k a year job? Because it requires very little training in the grand scheme. And it’s very uncompetitive compared to the rest of the world.

https://www.seek.com.au/fifo-no-experience-jobs

Having worked FIFO, albeit many moons ago, I was somewhat surprised that walk-ons could pull down that sort of money.

That is the crux of any comparison - hours worked. How many hours a year would a cabin crew member clock?

Green dump truck operator. Easily over $100k, most closer to $150k package. Site admin, offsider etc. Only need to be on more than $35 an hour working 2:1 to earn over $100k. Site/shift allowance for any FIFO is around $25k, so that brings the work rate to about $30 per hour. $30 per hour is an unskilled pay rate and easily achieved across many industries. International cabin crew spend a lot of time away from home, similar to any FIFO role but come and go more frequently. If they spend a chunk of that time away sitting by a pool at a hotel, then that is just a perk of the job to suit an airline schedule. My view is you are at work when you sign on at your base to when you return and sign off.

What about domestic or FIFO cabin crew?

I am not sure being away from home staying in a five star hotel, drinking duty free and sitting by the pool compares to two weeks in a mine site donga.

Mainline domestic QF cabin crew are on around $30 an hour, plus meal allowances overtime, weekend rates etc. Again it’s nothing special. Work max hours, weekends, max overnights etc and they could earn well over $100k.

$100k plus for a basic job that is shift work, very unpleasant at times (cleaning up vomit in an aircraft dunny), odd hours, and significant time away from home is entirely justified. I don’t care whether they are being paid to sit by a pool for days because the way the schedule works or not. Good job for some and many love it, but not me, couldn’t pay me enough to put up with the crap that cabin crew deal with almost every flight, no matter how good the margaritas are at the other end. I’d much rather drive a dump truck.

You forget cabin crew are the coal face of marketing for the airline. I wouldn't call that unskilled. Poor cabin crew mean customers choose other airlines. I know it's a big factor for when I fly.

Qantas used to have great business class cabin crew. Last time I flew Qantas a few years ago one of the crew told me she won't even fly Qantas as she hated management. She was great at her job and very friendly but said this while we were chatting waiting for an airbridge. Sort of put me off. Nowadays all things equal I will choose another airline. Just flew family of 5 here business class to Canada via aircanada over Qantas who parallel the route. The way a company treats its staff is reflected in how well they do their job. To me Qantas just seems mean and nasty but it may be because I read these threads.

Your flight attendant may have been reacting to the moral hypocrisy that we get from management constantly. Endless moaning about EBAs, pay freezes etc, yet taking eye-watering bonuses every year. Boris Johnson is repugnant in the UK for the same reasons that our management is: say one thing-do another.

I hope that QF management thanked and appreciated the effort of cabin crew who flew the repatriation flights, especially the flights ex Covid hot spots such as DEL, Howard Springs, isn't a 5 star hotel.

Then again, did they care? after all it was government that was paying.

Is it fair and reasonable, that the standard of conditions and treatment the flight attendants receive from management sets the standard of service for the company's customers?

"Hated" is a strong word but swap that for "have no respect for…." and you start to understand why many Qantas staff are incredibly loyal to the brand but not the management.
When front line staff in a service industry are constantly treated in an adversarial manner, it's a not surprising that they have little time for their managers and it's remarkable that most of them (despite the often derogatory comments) continue to provide a very good service. Real leadership starts from the top and rarely successfully involves an adversarial environment.

Very true. It is also worth noting that this is a concept that cuts both ways. An employee association that always applies an adversarial approach to industrial relations will most likely not be treated with respect. That is not to say acting in an adversarial way should always be avoided, just that it should not necessarily be the first tool of choice in every situation.

Not trying to highjack this CC thread, but I'm interested to hear others opinion. At my outfit, 90% Of the guys and girls I fly with ​​​​​are steadfast in there position that they will never ever fly 90+ hours a month as a standard again. I personally agree 100%. Spending time at home with the kid's is so precious and no amount of over time etc is worth losing that. There will be some that see the allure of $$ and will return to chasing over time and working on their day Off etc. but I actually have faith that many won't. The 4 day work week is already being talked about and implemented in other countries outside of aviation, yet we are expected to give up more, give up more flexibility, bend over for this bigger pineapple please.

A couple of interest rate rises will change their minds.