Qantas terminates long haul cabin crew agreement, demands more flexibility
 

https://www.reuters.com/article/qant...-idINL1N2TZ2W1

If they win this, it may set the tone for other EBA's battle.

Never waste a crisis. :yuk:


Its as much a threat to every other employee group who will be in negotiations soon, as it is to deal with the International Cabin Crew negotiations now.

Weren’t the EFA folks hoping to get there EA cancelled to get a pay rise?

Millions of dollars skimmed away by upper managers while many have lost everything (in some cases mates-permanently) and now QF want to screw their staff down some more. Disgraceful! The end of an airline job as a career Australia is upon us.

That is a very disturbing article on a number of levels. That suggests the cabin crew would have to remain emergency procedures proficient across multiple aircraft types for less than the current remuneration. If you are continuously changing aircraft types, to maintain safety margins you would have to be continuously re-familiarising with the emergency equipment layout and procedures for each aircraft type which would leave very little spare time for providing ancillary functions such as aisle service.

Is going back to award wages a pay rise for them?

You mean in the way other airlines CC such as BA, Virgin Atlantic and Australia (when they had LH B777 and A330 types), EK, EY, QR and who knows how many others with mixed fleets operate with no significant problems? My partner is CC for an airline and works across multiple types, equipment and layouts with no issues. As an Engineer I am Licensed and work across multiple types, engines, equipment and configs (even within the same type). If the Union were a bit more aware, they should be negotiating a reasonable pay rise on the basis of their members expanded qualifications.

Maybe the company can show flexibility too by combining all the groups into one. Imagine the cost savings engineering, ground handling, HR, safety departments, managersssss......

It’s particularly curios to me that an airline bent on safety would be focused so heavily on cost cutting.

I would never suggest a nation wide airline staff strike, that would be inciteful.

This is laughable. Says EBA that was voted down will allegedly cost (no doubt some pretty loose assumptions being used to bump up the figure) the airline $60m over 4 years. So less than the CEOs salary then?

Your entire post reads like it's from someone that has little understanding of what CC do. The simple act of being dual- or triple-endorsed isn't what you're making it out to be. If someone is passing their EPs and checks consistently, and possesses any kind of awareness around their job, they shouldn't have a problem in carrying out their duties properly. Technically, an aircraft shouldn't be boarded let alone departed unless all equipment checks have been carried out - so I'm unsure what kind of aisle service you're thinking people are being deprived of. There's a valid argument to be had around what QF is trying to pull, but the angle you're using isn't really it.

One person costing (and I mean costing) more than the entire workforce (and I mean those who do the work). That right there speaks volumes about the regime leading us.

Wouldn't it be funny if they couldn't find enough Flight Attendants to crew the flights they want to operate?

Probably why they’re recruiting onto the new leaner contract right now
https://qantas.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com...in-Crew_R77479

They tried. They were told ‘no’.

And a strike would likely be illegal. With damages potentially awarded against those who do strike.

Pretty hypocritical of Qantas to say that the current contract’s rostering provisions are inflexible, when they are the ones who put them in place to cut costs.

LH crew used to fly on all LH types (I believe) and then Qantas wanted cheaper crew to fly on the A380. They came up with a very cheap B-scale that all CC on the A380 were covered by. The original LH crew remained on the 767, 330 and 747.
Then the 787 came along and again Qantas only wanted cheaper CC on it.
The 767 and the 747 have been retired so the original crew are now marooned on the A330. But this was all orchestrated by Qantas to drive down CC salaries, yet Qantas have the gall to say the contract needs to be ripped up due to the very rostering practices they forced into place.

Typical disgusting behaviour from Qantas IR.

Ex AN CC here. We were endorsed on the 767, 737, 727 & A320 it was no big deal.

But at the same time I agree with what Beer Baron said above. Plenty of mates at QF and they were not allowed to go over to the A380 & 787 unless they were happy to get screwed deluxe and accept a new award.

Plenty of pilots out there saying this couldn’t / wouldn’t happen when the opposition’s pilot EA was up for vote the second time around.

Ok, Protected Industrial Action

You need to have gone past the expiry date of your enterprise agreement to be able to follow the process to get approval from Fair Work to conduct protected industrial action. Moreover, the action cannot be in support of claims by workers under a different industrial agreement. So, no, there cannot be ‘industry wide‘ protected industrial action.

What would be the grounds for Fair Work to terminate an agreement? Surely QF can’t use COVID tough times blah blah blah that would start a rolling domino affect in all industry’s when other EAs are open.

An employer, an employee or an employee organisation covered by the agreement can make an application to Fair Work to terminate an agreement once it has expired. Fair Work MUST terminate the agreement if the FWC is satisfied it is not contrary to the public interest to do so, and the FWC considers it is appropriate to do so taking into account all the circumstances.

That Qantas could do this would be no surprise to Mainline pilots, as they were warned of this possible consequence by some of their AIPA representatives during the last round of bargaining for enterprise agreements. Unfortunately some labeled them scaremongers.

Plenty of agreements reaching their maturity in the near future and hundreds of staff members with long memories who have been burnt by greed driven airline managers. A career spent being sh!t talked and having our profession destroyed by said managers must have ramifications for the perpetrators. I would never suggest anyone conduct their own unprotected action but I have to say the little extras and goodwill that airlines have enjoyed for decades is not covered by my agreement. At a time when staff are the ONLY way airlines can recover, managers are playing a game of diminishing returns.

I understand the sentiment, and don't disagree. My comments above are not in any way meant to state that I accept that the industrial laws in this country are fair or balanced, I was just relaying what the legislation contains.

With regard to your statement, be aware that not performing 'the little extras that are not covered by your agreement', may well be considered taking industrial action. The Act, in part, defines industrial action as: 'the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice which results in a restriction, or limitation on, or a delay in the performance of work'.

Odd how that never cuts the other way. The little extras I enjoyed back when I was a valued member of an airline team have been quite openly withdrawn over the years. Anyhoo good on us for showing an interest in what the company is (attempting) to do to our cabin colleagues.

Yes, just another example of how the system is rigged against workers. I am always surprised by how many of my workmates support the party that pushes these kinds of industrial laws.

I hope fairwork do not approve this, for all out of us. Makes me curious if this will be tried on with us.

Unfortunately, it looks like the statements put out by Qantas look eerily similar to the successful arguments used to terminate the Griffin Coal agreement. In that case, the public interest test argument was construed as meeting the objects of the Act of flexibility for business, productivity and economic growth against the protection of the relevant modern award.

I respect your responsibilities however, you don't have to deal with performing infallibly under the extreme stress of a life threatening emergency situation. When faced with a life and death situation in a hostile environment the potential to make a mistake is amplified, factor in a multitude of types and the margin for error increases. It is infinitely easier to adjust to working in a variations of types under normal conditions and if aircraft never crashed that part of human factors would be never be a consideration. What do you consider to be your partner's core responsibility? Do you think that pilots should operate multiple types? The article suggested the result was a reduction in remuneration for an increase in responsibility however, the spreadsheet manipulators don't mention the word responsibility because fundamentally they don't comprehend what it means in the context of safety of human beings. Their extent of the understanding of aviation is limited to seat per mile costs. They are not inherently evil people just oblivious to such matters.

This is the weapon by which the ruling class oppress the working class. The award system is deliberately suppressed to keep the remuneration levels (and conditions) abysmally low. This provides the mechanism for employers to strip out conditions for a few extra pennies of wages and remain above the award. The ultimate agenda is for the employer groups to arrive at a situation where there are no conditions left to bargain with and hence Australia will join the nations of the working class poor. Those who think this is not possible in this country need to research history. Why do you think unions came into being? The irrefutable fact is (for the general population) there is a direct correlation between low union membership and diminished wages and employment conditions.

However there is nothing to stop them all participating in the Great Resignation

https://www.smh.com.au/business/work...11-p5984f.html

Chris, Gordon was suggesting an industry wide strike. We sure as heck aren’t going to see an industry wide ‘great resignation’.

No doubt some of the F/As will. In fact a number of them have definitely done so already. Having been stood down many discovered alternative careers. They happily built these careers over the last 20 months whilst also pocketing the jobkeeper and other amounts paid (IRP, DRP, etc) and then when the time to be recalled came tendered their resignations. Good on those who did and good on those who also saw the opportunity to take VR.

Those who chose to remain though are now faced with this set of circumstances and as the Headmaster has pointed out, the game is not geared towards favouring the employee.

Methinks QF is preempting a change of Govmint:rolleyes:

They've also pre-empted the fact, as with last night's news, that the real money earner, Domestic, is going to have it's full recovery further delayed by months. So minimum cost for labour is priority.

As above, looks like those COVID tough times are going to continue.....

I understood jobkeeper payments were made to the employers?

Yes. But if the worker was stood down and wasn’t taking leave the payment flowed straight through to the worker.

Thank-you Keg for that information.

Whilst correct, I dont believe for one minute that the entire amount of government support flowed straight through to the worker.
Most people I know (not all) needed to take leave at various times just to keep food on the table, particularly families where both incomes are supplied by the aviation industry. Not too many peeps could just live off jobkeeper, but I’m sure there were some.
The group basically had their leave balances subsidized by jobkeeper during the pandemic.

Also, the entity I work for made the whole process as convoluted as possible. As a result, people missed out of government support via various cutoffs, payroll anomalies, payroll balancing, company policy (fortnight support payments vs monthly pays) etc.

Correct. Jobkeeper was always advertised as a business support. In the early part of the pandemic I took some leave and the jobkeeper money went direct to QF to cover that leave. Later in the pandemic I was stood down, took no leave, and thus I got the full benefit of the jobkeeper amount.

Not only did Jobkeeper subsidise staff burning their leave but it also subsidised every staff member that remained working. That was the exactly as the government intended.

And yes, if one was being paid for meal allowances in arrears when stood down then that also impacted on how much flowed through to the individual. Sadly, that too was as the government intended.

However the crew I was referring to earlier started other jobs/ careers. Thus they weren’t burning leave. The jobkeeper amount went through to them on top of their income in their new job/ career. And when QF asked them to return many of them said ‘yeah, nah’.

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.