QF LCC, Erosion of condition, and the FAAA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hicksville
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF LCC, Erosion of condition, and the FAAA
Hi all,
Just wondering what the current feeling amongst the FAAA and its members with regards to the startup of the new LCC.
There is a substantial amount of rumbling from within AIPA concerned that this is a blatant attempt by the company to effect a "transfer of business", thereby taking away flying from the current 737 crews and handing it over to an external pilot body much the same way as the current Jet Connect situation. These other pilots are willing to operate for fraction of the wages and conditions. Some figures have been thrown around indicating Captains will be paid some 40% lower than current mainline crew, and with the cut-throat competition for jet jobs in the Australian pilot industry there will be plenty of takers. Essentially it is felt that this move by the company is "devaluing" the profession, and if recruited externally, this new LCC will severely limit the option for the more junior pilots in the company, both long and short haul.
Does the FAAA feel that this move is an attack on the conditions and wages of its members and profession?
Just wondering what the current feeling amongst the FAAA and its members with regards to the startup of the new LCC.
There is a substantial amount of rumbling from within AIPA concerned that this is a blatant attempt by the company to effect a "transfer of business", thereby taking away flying from the current 737 crews and handing it over to an external pilot body much the same way as the current Jet Connect situation. These other pilots are willing to operate for fraction of the wages and conditions. Some figures have been thrown around indicating Captains will be paid some 40% lower than current mainline crew, and with the cut-throat competition for jet jobs in the Australian pilot industry there will be plenty of takers. Essentially it is felt that this move by the company is "devaluing" the profession, and if recruited externally, this new LCC will severely limit the option for the more junior pilots in the company, both long and short haul.
Does the FAAA feel that this move is an attack on the conditions and wages of its members and profession?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no need to look further than Australian Airlines if you want to see a good example of 'erosion of conditions', at least for Cabin Staff. Most of Australian's flying has been transferred from Qantas. The only 'new' thing they have down is to start flying to Sabah and that is probably so heavily subsidised by Sabah Govt. that the route could not stand on its own without their support. Mark my words, there is some more flying to go to AO from QF - all international 767 flying is one thing being considered - so don't be surprised when you see it. Of course the greedy AIPA and the management do look after themselves very well. It's only 'low cost' for some.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is obvious what QF are trying to do with the new LCC and yes everyone is aware of it but it seems no one is prepared to do anything about it especially the FAAA. Short Haul cabin crew are very worried about their futures with Qantas.
I wouldnt be surprised if the FAAA are more interested in negotiating redundancy packages instead of trying to secure our positions and salaries/conditions with Qantas. The FAAA Domestic/Regional division are very weak and will never stand up to Qantas, unlike the Long haul FAAA.
It seems everyone is washing their hands of it and just accepting that low salaries and bad conditions are the way of the future. A cabin crew position with Qantas use to be a career and one that could last your working life, these days things are very very different. The wages are going to be next to nothing and the conditions so bad that crew will burn out and move on to something else.
I suppose its a similar situation with Cabin Crew, of course Impulse crew will crew the new LCC if that is what Qantas expects and they will do this even if it means short haul crew will loose their jobs because of it what choice do they have? They are cheaper than Qantas crew and that is the point of the LCC.
I wouldnt be surprised if the FAAA are more interested in negotiating redundancy packages instead of trying to secure our positions and salaries/conditions with Qantas. The FAAA Domestic/Regional division are very weak and will never stand up to Qantas, unlike the Long haul FAAA.
It seems everyone is washing their hands of it and just accepting that low salaries and bad conditions are the way of the future. A cabin crew position with Qantas use to be a career and one that could last your working life, these days things are very very different. The wages are going to be next to nothing and the conditions so bad that crew will burn out and move on to something else.
I suppose its a similar situation with Cabin Crew, of course Impulse crew will crew the new LCC if that is what Qantas expects and they will do this even if it means short haul crew will loose their jobs because of it what choice do they have? They are cheaper than Qantas crew and that is the point of the LCC.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xatrix,
Jet connect pilots get paid a lot less than 40% than the Q.F guys ,
their wage scales are like that across the board. I have no doubt that Mr D.'s intentions are sinister. Start a low cost domestic operation and let it stealthily cannibalise the existing domesic operation.
As far as the F.A.A.A goes you people have got to remember that YOU are the F.A.A.A. ! If you are unhappy with the way the elected officials are handling the situation then get organised and get them out of there ,or directly let them know your feelings. They are there to act on the wishes of the membership as a whole, not to enforce their own agendas.
Having had some experience with the F.A.A.A I can assure you that there are some officials who are more interested in creating their own little empires, often at the expense of good unionism, than responding to the real needs of the membership.
Keep them honest and keep them on the ball , the majority are genuinely there to promote your interests.
Stay safe, stay happy
Jet connect pilots get paid a lot less than 40% than the Q.F guys ,
their wage scales are like that across the board. I have no doubt that Mr D.'s intentions are sinister. Start a low cost domestic operation and let it stealthily cannibalise the existing domesic operation.
As far as the F.A.A.A goes you people have got to remember that YOU are the F.A.A.A. ! If you are unhappy with the way the elected officials are handling the situation then get organised and get them out of there ,or directly let them know your feelings. They are there to act on the wishes of the membership as a whole, not to enforce their own agendas.
Having had some experience with the F.A.A.A I can assure you that there are some officials who are more interested in creating their own little empires, often at the expense of good unionism, than responding to the real needs of the membership.
Keep them honest and keep them on the ball , the majority are genuinely there to promote your interests.
Stay safe, stay happy
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent Australian Industrial Relations Commission hear with FAAA longhaul, Qf and FAAA domestic /regional over 767 tasman flying.
Result - Additional 767 tasman sectors for Shorthaul.
Yeah, they are very weak and only interested in VR packages.
Get real Galleyhag. The FAAA elected officals are a dedicated group of people who work extremely hard for all domestic/regional cabin crew. It is an extremely difficult time for all aviation unions in Australia. We need to fully support our elected officals.
If you have real concerns, get involved in YOUR FAAA. Elections were held recently and only 1 position went to an election in the domestic/regional division.
Remember, the FAAA had the foresight to include the regional flying clause in EBA6. This may be very relevant in the near future.
Result - Additional 767 tasman sectors for Shorthaul.
Yeah, they are very weak and only interested in VR packages.
Get real Galleyhag. The FAAA elected officals are a dedicated group of people who work extremely hard for all domestic/regional cabin crew. It is an extremely difficult time for all aviation unions in Australia. We need to fully support our elected officals.
If you have real concerns, get involved in YOUR FAAA. Elections were held recently and only 1 position went to an election in the domestic/regional division.
Remember, the FAAA had the foresight to include the regional flying clause in EBA6. This may be very relevant in the near future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hicksville
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should point out that I'm a "tecchie tubby". Just trying to gauge the feeling across the company, especially from the short-haul CC since we get little chance to have any dealings with them (on the 400).
Apparently Flight Ops management is effectively washing their hands of the whole issue saying that the company hasn't consulted them in regard to the LCC so has no say in what happens.
Apparently Flight Ops management is effectively washing their hands of the whole issue saying that the company hasn't consulted them in regard to the LCC so has no say in what happens.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lexus1
The additional tasman services is part of the replacement flying undertaken by the 747, its in balck and white the commission even washed their hands of it .
Lets see what happens if and when short haul try to take other international sectors off long haul. Do you think the long haul FAAA will just sit back and let that happen I think not and isnt there some clause in the long haul EBA which states they can only do long haul flying?
Sure there is more replacement flying from the 747 but what happens when that runs out. The FAAA are weak and I stand by that claim. It will be interesting to see what they think they can achieve as history has shown QF walks all over the top of the domestic/regional FAAA and they just accept it and than expect us to do the same. Get behind them that will be the day.
The additional tasman services is part of the replacement flying undertaken by the 747, its in balck and white the commission even washed their hands of it .
Lets see what happens if and when short haul try to take other international sectors off long haul. Do you think the long haul FAAA will just sit back and let that happen I think not and isnt there some clause in the long haul EBA which states they can only do long haul flying?
Sure there is more replacement flying from the 747 but what happens when that runs out. The FAAA are weak and I stand by that claim. It will be interesting to see what they think they can achieve as history has shown QF walks all over the top of the domestic/regional FAAA and they just accept it and than expect us to do the same. Get behind them that will be the day.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting post, so far.
I should point out that the FAAA IS it's members. If it is weak - it is because the members are not united. I think what will make the FAAA strong (and show their true colours) is full realisation that their jobs and conditions (as they know it) are are under threat. For now, I beleive they are in complete denial. Perhaps they are just waiting for the facts to present themselves clearly before the real panic sets in. Reading an article in the Courier Mail today - these announcements should be next week. I will be interested to see the reactions from the members then.
(My guess is that the FA's will play hard ball, too. This won't be the push over that the company is envisaging - or maybe even gambling on.)
I beleive the FAAA officials have been very aware of pending changes to QF SH for quite some time. Let's face it, Geoffrey has been using the media as propaganda for the 'launch' of this event for about 6 months now, so it has been obvious that a dramatic change was ahead of us. (And these changes were not to going to be to OUR advantage. But of course it WILL 'save' the company, because, hey, it is quite evident that it's going down the gurglar
) However, the company has kept its full plan under wraps and are playing with their cards close to the chest. Without all of the information (and without the company being totally open and honest) the FAAA officials have had no choice but to wait for the full story before launching any kind of attack.
Only time will tell, now.
(My guess is that the FA's will play hard ball, too. This won't be the push over that the company is envisaging - or maybe even gambling on.)
I beleive the FAAA officials have been very aware of pending changes to QF SH for quite some time. Let's face it, Geoffrey has been using the media as propaganda for the 'launch' of this event for about 6 months now, so it has been obvious that a dramatic change was ahead of us. (And these changes were not to going to be to OUR advantage. But of course it WILL 'save' the company, because, hey, it is quite evident that it's going down the gurglar
) However, the company has kept its full plan under wraps and are playing with their cards close to the chest. Without all of the information (and without the company being totally open and honest) the FAAA officials have had no choice but to wait for the full story before launching any kind of attack.Only time will tell, now.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GalleyHag, I simply cannot let you make these comments without a response.
During the recent troubles with Short Haul's surplus, were any crew made redundant by Qantas?
No. This, despite the fact that the drop in flying resulted in some 300 positions being made surplus to requirements.
Who do you think prevented this from happening? The FAAA. By introducing measures such as Leave Without Pay, Temporary Part Time, etc. no one was forcibly made redundant. In fact, the only redundancies that occurred were the voluntary type.
And what of Long Haul crew operating over the agreed number of domestic flights that would have normally been operated by Short Haul crew (SYD/CNS/SYD and SYD/PER/SYD)? Give and take matey - give and take!
You obviously have very firm opinions, to which you are entitled. But I will not stand by and see you make comments about a union that does nothing but slog it's guts out time and time again to protect the jobs of a very small number of people with little in the way of resources. True and honest observation - not even so much as an opinion.
The FAAA, like EVERY OTHER UNION IN AUSTRALIA, is in a much weakened position since the Howard Govt was elected. Speak to Reithy and co. Need I remind you of the Workplace Relations Act in 1996, which prevented third party strikes (the very same strikes that occurred up until then to ensure the working conditions you referred to went forward, as opposed to backward)? Twenty allowable matters? Ohhh yes...let's all thank Reithy for that one...
Oh, and since you think the Long Haul FAAA is so strong, did the recent strike do much to disrupt flights? No. Qantas, as we are all aware, will not stand by and accept strike action and recruited a whole army of casual labour to crew the flights. Did the strike cause any disruption? Maybe to the training department, but they got a whole army of cheap casual labour (at Year 1 rates) against more senior crew rates - so a bargain at half the price!
It's a different world these days, and if you have people on the ground willing to do the job for peanuts, you have them to thank for any reduction in your conditions - and Qantas, who will always pay for the cheaper option. But it's easy for us to condemn those who can't get back into or even start their flying careers.
Just for your info guys - prior to me becoming an FA, I was never even a union member. Never saw the point in them. That was, of course, until I joined Impulse - and saw how many thousands of dollars the FAAA spent in taking Impulse to court to try and improve what really were abysmal conditions. That's when I became a member and involved myself to see what they really did. And I was shocked.
If you believe, GalleyHag, that you can do a better job of protecting the entitlements of a group such as us, then be our guest. The FAAA is as much yours as it is everyone elses that flies.
You either change your life, or life changes you - your choice.
The change we are seeing now is occurring all over the world GalleyHag. We have been very lucky (with the exception of our AN friends) to hold onto our jobs without the furloughs that have occurred in the US, combined with the massive drops in pay they receive now.
I don't advocate the dilution of pay and conditions as much as the next person, but what choice do we have? Accept lower conditions (which, even when compared with other industries, is still quite favourable), or risk job losses? Rock and a hard place guys.
Remember - the queue for people to jump into our positions grows every day. Are you so willing to stand by your convictions that it means you and your training friends lose their jobs because they're junior - or would you prefer to negotiate and make small changes to ensure the future of your long career?
Just ask crews in the US. And the UK and Europe, where carriers rise and fall regularly. Food for thought.
During the recent troubles with Short Haul's surplus, were any crew made redundant by Qantas?
No. This, despite the fact that the drop in flying resulted in some 300 positions being made surplus to requirements.
Who do you think prevented this from happening? The FAAA. By introducing measures such as Leave Without Pay, Temporary Part Time, etc. no one was forcibly made redundant. In fact, the only redundancies that occurred were the voluntary type.
And what of Long Haul crew operating over the agreed number of domestic flights that would have normally been operated by Short Haul crew (SYD/CNS/SYD and SYD/PER/SYD)? Give and take matey - give and take!
You obviously have very firm opinions, to which you are entitled. But I will not stand by and see you make comments about a union that does nothing but slog it's guts out time and time again to protect the jobs of a very small number of people with little in the way of resources. True and honest observation - not even so much as an opinion.
The FAAA, like EVERY OTHER UNION IN AUSTRALIA, is in a much weakened position since the Howard Govt was elected. Speak to Reithy and co. Need I remind you of the Workplace Relations Act in 1996, which prevented third party strikes (the very same strikes that occurred up until then to ensure the working conditions you referred to went forward, as opposed to backward)? Twenty allowable matters? Ohhh yes...let's all thank Reithy for that one...
Oh, and since you think the Long Haul FAAA is so strong, did the recent strike do much to disrupt flights? No. Qantas, as we are all aware, will not stand by and accept strike action and recruited a whole army of casual labour to crew the flights. Did the strike cause any disruption? Maybe to the training department, but they got a whole army of cheap casual labour (at Year 1 rates) against more senior crew rates - so a bargain at half the price!
It's a different world these days, and if you have people on the ground willing to do the job for peanuts, you have them to thank for any reduction in your conditions - and Qantas, who will always pay for the cheaper option. But it's easy for us to condemn those who can't get back into or even start their flying careers.
Just for your info guys - prior to me becoming an FA, I was never even a union member. Never saw the point in them. That was, of course, until I joined Impulse - and saw how many thousands of dollars the FAAA spent in taking Impulse to court to try and improve what really were abysmal conditions. That's when I became a member and involved myself to see what they really did. And I was shocked.
If you believe, GalleyHag, that you can do a better job of protecting the entitlements of a group such as us, then be our guest. The FAAA is as much yours as it is everyone elses that flies.
You either change your life, or life changes you - your choice.
The change we are seeing now is occurring all over the world GalleyHag. We have been very lucky (with the exception of our AN friends) to hold onto our jobs without the furloughs that have occurred in the US, combined with the massive drops in pay they receive now.
I don't advocate the dilution of pay and conditions as much as the next person, but what choice do we have? Accept lower conditions (which, even when compared with other industries, is still quite favourable), or risk job losses? Rock and a hard place guys.
Remember - the queue for people to jump into our positions grows every day. Are you so willing to stand by your convictions that it means you and your training friends lose their jobs because they're junior - or would you prefer to negotiate and make small changes to ensure the future of your long career?
Just ask crews in the US. And the UK and Europe, where carriers rise and fall regularly. Food for thought.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seatback once again incorrect
Surplus was 107 crew in s/h only
*50 to l/h last week & 50 to l/h in Jan 2004, arranged between the unions settled this.
If the redundancy program would not have been extended to l/h there would of been redundancy in s/h. Quote Janine Green
Last week to s/h to l/h conversion class in SYD.
*L/H have been flying 9% of s/h patterns since Dec 2001, current agreement is 1% of each division flying in each division.
*L/H union tested the water with the stop work meeting, sure casuals and trained office crew staffed flights.
*How was Mr Dixon going to replace 4000 crew with about 350, don't concern yourself with the logistics but once all aircraft left staffed by casuals and foriegn crew, there was no one left to fly the next day.
*The union was counting the beans when you thought they were waging war.
*Many casuals would not do that flying again because of the grief they copped and the trickery that decieved them in the first place. *They have now done themselves out of fulltime work for a extended period if not forever by devaluing the people who would of got it for them, would I stick my neck out for a MAM who worked during an industrial disbute ? no way !!!
Tip = Deal only in facts
Galley hag I couldn't agree with you more
*50 to l/h last week & 50 to l/h in Jan 2004, arranged between the unions settled this.
If the redundancy program would not have been extended to l/h there would of been redundancy in s/h. Quote Janine Green
Last week to s/h to l/h conversion class in SYD.
*L/H have been flying 9% of s/h patterns since Dec 2001, current agreement is 1% of each division flying in each division.
*L/H union tested the water with the stop work meeting, sure casuals and trained office crew staffed flights.
*How was Mr Dixon going to replace 4000 crew with about 350, don't concern yourself with the logistics but once all aircraft left staffed by casuals and foriegn crew, there was no one left to fly the next day.
*The union was counting the beans when you thought they were waging war.
*Many casuals would not do that flying again because of the grief they copped and the trickery that decieved them in the first place. *They have now done themselves out of fulltime work for a extended period if not forever by devaluing the people who would of got it for them, would I stick my neck out for a MAM who worked during an industrial disbute ? no way !!!
Tip = Deal only in facts
Galley hag I couldn't agree with you more
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear, Mr Seatback!
Might I also add that the FAAA (to my understanding) has only had one liason with the big Q re. the LCC and that was to say that it will occur. How can the FAAA begin to fight for something when it doesn't know what it is fighting for?! Qantas need to figure out exactly what it wants to do (by the sound of it there is an announcement next week) before the FAAA can act effectively. Why would the union go in guns blazing when it doesn't even know what the deal is. I for one would prefer the FAAA to what until it knows what Geoff etc. want to do. Only then should the formulate a plan and start the good fight.
GalleyHag -
You should use some of your energies to the greater good. Get involved with the FAAA and make a difference. You will. Standing around and getting caught up in hearsay and worry does nothing for anyone. (Not saying it just you or you at all - just a general comment!) If you are that concerned - and you obviously are - have your concerns heard through YOUR union.
I am not sure weather you progressed from the regionals through Progression or due to the Southern closure. Either way you have the FAAA to thank for that. (Please excuse me if I am incorrect in your past employment - just guessing from what I've picked up from your past posts
)
Also I am sure the union isn't planning on mass redundancies. Without members it wouldn't survive. I can assure you that the Union's efforts are solely focussed on the secured future of it's members and the conditions of flight attendants Australia wide. Why on Earth would their concerns lie anywhere else? Eroding conditions and dwindling membership would only damage the FAAA.
I make the above comments to everyone. If you don't like what is happening to YOUR job then do something about it! One thing is for sure. The FAAA is going to do a much better job with the whole-hearted support of every QF Group flight attendant.
Don Esson -
Have you looked at the Australian Airlines Cabin Crew EBA? Pretty decent in the grand scheme of things. Considering the reduced onboard product (single class) and MUCH easier flying than traditional Long Haul. Given their duty hour limits can it even be classed as 'Long' haul? Not to mention you have those with one year seniority picking up four day Nagoyas and the associated allowances $$$. How senior was a Japan trip before the flying went to AO? 20 years? It's now 30! I have heard most cabin crew at LH with two year's seniority don't even have a flying line. That's not good for the bank balance.
Might I also add that the FAAA (to my understanding) has only had one liason with the big Q re. the LCC and that was to say that it will occur. How can the FAAA begin to fight for something when it doesn't know what it is fighting for?! Qantas need to figure out exactly what it wants to do (by the sound of it there is an announcement next week) before the FAAA can act effectively. Why would the union go in guns blazing when it doesn't even know what the deal is. I for one would prefer the FAAA to what until it knows what Geoff etc. want to do. Only then should the formulate a plan and start the good fight.
GalleyHag -
You should use some of your energies to the greater good. Get involved with the FAAA and make a difference. You will. Standing around and getting caught up in hearsay and worry does nothing for anyone. (Not saying it just you or you at all - just a general comment!) If you are that concerned - and you obviously are - have your concerns heard through YOUR union.
I am not sure weather you progressed from the regionals through Progression or due to the Southern closure. Either way you have the FAAA to thank for that. (Please excuse me if I am incorrect in your past employment - just guessing from what I've picked up from your past posts
)Also I am sure the union isn't planning on mass redundancies. Without members it wouldn't survive. I can assure you that the Union's efforts are solely focussed on the secured future of it's members and the conditions of flight attendants Australia wide. Why on Earth would their concerns lie anywhere else? Eroding conditions and dwindling membership would only damage the FAAA.
I make the above comments to everyone. If you don't like what is happening to YOUR job then do something about it! One thing is for sure. The FAAA is going to do a much better job with the whole-hearted support of every QF Group flight attendant.
Don Esson -
Have you looked at the Australian Airlines Cabin Crew EBA? Pretty decent in the grand scheme of things. Considering the reduced onboard product (single class) and MUCH easier flying than traditional Long Haul. Given their duty hour limits can it even be classed as 'Long' haul? Not to mention you have those with one year seniority picking up four day Nagoyas and the associated allowances $$$. How senior was a Japan trip before the flying went to AO? 20 years? It's now 30! I have heard most cabin crew at LH with two year's seniority don't even have a flying line. That's not good for the bank balance.
Last edited by ditzyboy; 14th Nov 2003 at 21:07.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I too agree with GalleyHag.
I can only speak on behalf of my own personal experience, which is the domestic/regional domestic division of the FAAA. Don't get me wrong, I know the FAAA delegates work their butts off trying to make everyone happy, but they are the bottom of the food chain. The real rot extends right to the core.
Look at what happened with L/H. The FAs went out for a stop work meeeting for which was rightfully theirs. The FAAA domestic/regional division and all of it's members should have been supportive of our colleagues in L/H. Instead the FAAA domestic division allowed the use of casuals who also were FAAA members to help Qantas! So much for support! The FAAA is very clearly divided, seems each is out for their own.
I'm embarrassed and disgusted at the way the FAAA domestic/regional division treated the situation. It allowed their own members (the MAM people) to fill the positions of those belonging to another division of the same union!!!!!!!!!. It's un-Australian and a bloody disgrace.
As for redundancies, it's true that QF have not forced any FA into compulsory redundancy. However don't you go thinking that QF are gracious and kind, they are a business!! They know what effects compulsory redundancy has on their business and importantly, their image. They will avoid this at all costs. Voluntary redundancy looks so much better on paper, just ask any ex-AN FA!!
It is ridiculous to compare the situation in the US to the situation in Australia. The US airlines were hit substantially harder than QF, and QF also had the benefit of receiving a chunk of market share on a silver platter courtesy of Ansett. Not to mention, that some airlines in the US are non-unionised and others have a very low union membership. It is very difficult for FAs to stick together when all have different agendas. The airlines are able to capitalise on this, so now our US friends are in the unenviable situation of furloughs and lay-offs.
Anyway back to the original question...
Yes I do think the conditions have been eroded, and I think they will continue to be as long as FAs will sit back and accept it.
The following statement made by Mr Seatback 2 greatly disturbed me "I don't advocate the dilution of pay and conditions as much as the next person, but what choice do we have?". We have a choice, but the fear of "the queue for people to jump into our positions grows every day" is utilised and manipulated by QF every day in order to get what they want. They have already incited fear into my colleagues at QF S/H, L/H and now even Impulse. Everyone excluding only the very senior are frightened and concerned about the security of their jobs.
No offence intended to anyone, just expressing my thoughts.
SG
Edited twice to fix my bad spelling and atrocious grammar.
I can only speak on behalf of my own personal experience, which is the domestic/regional domestic division of the FAAA. Don't get me wrong, I know the FAAA delegates work their butts off trying to make everyone happy, but they are the bottom of the food chain. The real rot extends right to the core.
Look at what happened with L/H. The FAs went out for a stop work meeeting for which was rightfully theirs. The FAAA domestic/regional division and all of it's members should have been supportive of our colleagues in L/H. Instead the FAAA domestic division allowed the use of casuals who also were FAAA members to help Qantas! So much for support! The FAAA is very clearly divided, seems each is out for their own.
I'm embarrassed and disgusted at the way the FAAA domestic/regional division treated the situation. It allowed their own members (the MAM people) to fill the positions of those belonging to another division of the same union!!!!!!!!!. It's un-Australian and a bloody disgrace.
As for redundancies, it's true that QF have not forced any FA into compulsory redundancy. However don't you go thinking that QF are gracious and kind, they are a business!! They know what effects compulsory redundancy has on their business and importantly, their image. They will avoid this at all costs. Voluntary redundancy looks so much better on paper, just ask any ex-AN FA!!
It is ridiculous to compare the situation in the US to the situation in Australia. The US airlines were hit substantially harder than QF, and QF also had the benefit of receiving a chunk of market share on a silver platter courtesy of Ansett. Not to mention, that some airlines in the US are non-unionised and others have a very low union membership. It is very difficult for FAs to stick together when all have different agendas. The airlines are able to capitalise on this, so now our US friends are in the unenviable situation of furloughs and lay-offs.
Anyway back to the original question...
Yes I do think the conditions have been eroded, and I think they will continue to be as long as FAs will sit back and accept it.
The following statement made by Mr Seatback 2 greatly disturbed me "I don't advocate the dilution of pay and conditions as much as the next person, but what choice do we have?". We have a choice, but the fear of "the queue for people to jump into our positions grows every day" is utilised and manipulated by QF every day in order to get what they want. They have already incited fear into my colleagues at QF S/H, L/H and now even Impulse. Everyone excluding only the very senior are frightened and concerned about the security of their jobs.
No offence intended to anyone, just expressing my thoughts.
SG
Edited twice to fix my bad spelling and atrocious grammar.
Last edited by SydGirl; 15th Nov 2003 at 01:04.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"qantas walks all over the FAAA domestic/regional division" (galleyhag)
I guess the southern closure is a good example of that. What other union gained positions for their members in QF mainline?
This is an example of a strong, effective and relevant union. The only ones with footprints on their back after that one was QF.
You said that the additional Tasman 767 sectors were 747 replacement flying. Partly right. They were also replacement flying for Jetconnect tasman 737 flying as required by EBA6.
Another example of a strong, effective and relevant union.
Sydgirl,
The FAAA domestic/regional division did not allow its members to do LH work during their stopwork meetings. In fact it reminded it's members on feb 21 that they must not do other unions work during industrial action. The FAAA domestic/regional division could not take industrial action in support as this is illegal.
"the rot extends all the way to the core" + " they are the bottom of the food chain"
You said no offence intended. Well I am offended. You demean all Domestic /regional crew with comments like that.
PP,
Your claim about 747 flying being 9% of domestic patterns since 2001. Is this an average or is it a peak figure at one point. You don't see many 747 at domestic terminals these days.
I guess the southern closure is a good example of that. What other union gained positions for their members in QF mainline?
This is an example of a strong, effective and relevant union. The only ones with footprints on their back after that one was QF.
You said that the additional Tasman 767 sectors were 747 replacement flying. Partly right. They were also replacement flying for Jetconnect tasman 737 flying as required by EBA6.
Another example of a strong, effective and relevant union.
Sydgirl,
The FAAA domestic/regional division did not allow its members to do LH work during their stopwork meetings. In fact it reminded it's members on feb 21 that they must not do other unions work during industrial action. The FAAA domestic/regional division could not take industrial action in support as this is illegal.
"the rot extends all the way to the core" + " they are the bottom of the food chain"
You said no offence intended. Well I am offended. You demean all Domestic /regional crew with comments like that.
PP,
Your claim about 747 flying being 9% of domestic patterns since 2001. Is this an average or is it a peak figure at one point. You don't see many 747 at domestic terminals these days.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow - what a great topic!
SydGirl -
I totally agree with your statement "As long as we sit back and take it..."
Well then. Don't take it! Kick up a fuss. The ONLY way we can do that is through our union so it is imperitive for all to support it. If you don't agree with a motion that the FAAA has then make sure your concerns are heard. They only people the FAAA exists for is us.
I can only encourage you to use your obvious enthusiasm toward the cause. Get involved if you feel strongly. You'd be surprised at just who listens then.
Qantas will only listen to us through the union. It is quite clear to me who I should be supporting.
Just my ideas.
SydGirl -
I totally agree with your statement "As long as we sit back and take it..."
Well then. Don't take it! Kick up a fuss. The ONLY way we can do that is through our union so it is imperitive for all to support it. If you don't agree with a motion that the FAAA has then make sure your concerns are heard. They only people the FAAA exists for is us.
I can only encourage you to use your obvious enthusiasm toward the cause. Get involved if you feel strongly. You'd be surprised at just who listens then.
Qantas will only listen to us through the union. It is quite clear to me who I should be supporting.
Just my ideas.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Seatback 2
Your information is incorrect as pointed out by PP. You are pushing your own agenda here, furthermore it is clear you are prepared to erode the salaries and conditions of existing cabin crew to protect your future, so dont lecture me.
Geoff Dixon has stated for some time now that in terms of cabin crew the FAAA are to blame for the current state of play. The FAAA negotiated the Virgin EBA with salaries and conditions along way apart from Qantas and Ansett (at the time). Than when Impulse was brought into the Qantas family the FAAA couldnt very well turn around and expect Qantas to pay Impulse crew the same as Short Haul due to what they did with Virgin. So we had another major jet operation that is a cheaper alternative to Short Haul cabin crew. Thus the start of lower salaries and conditions.
As for the whole redundancy issue, the surplus was effecting both the long and short division and both unions were involved when it came to Leave without pay, part time etc so I dont think the domestic/regional division can take the praise for that one.
You are right Mr Seatback there are thousands of people out there willing to push us out an emergency exit to get our jobs and they will do it for half the price, you are obviously one of these people, if you are prepared to "accept lower conditions".
Ditzyboy
The FAAA has done nothing for me, I am a permanent short haul flight attendant without there help and for your information I have made my thoughts VERY VERY clear to the FAAA and the response I received was "your comments are noted".
But if you want to talk about the FAAA and the REAL QFlink regionals look what they have done for Eastern recently, yeah right they are right behind their members they really listened to them didnt they, they washed their hands of them and allowed QF to blackmail them. Thats what I call support.
Let me also tell you the FAAA are in fact very worried about their own survival and their own jobs.
SydGirl is not alone in her thoughts a very large percentage of short haul crew feel the same. I was disgusted that members of the FAAA domestic/regional division namely MAM crew were used as strike breakers. At the very least their membership should have been cancelled.
lexus1
I dont think pulling out a document that dated back to the old Australian Airlines day relating to Southern, Eastern and Sunstate can be regarded as a job well done by the current FAAA. Thanks to the forsight of the FAAA at the time (which I think from memory also included long haul) to ensure such a document existed to protect the regionals from the tatics QF used when they decided to merge Southern with Eastern. That was an example of a strong, effective and relevant union AT THE TIME many moons ago.
I dont know where you get your information from but members of the FAAA domestic/regional division did in fact work as strike breakers during the long haul strike. They were MAM crew as you surely must be aware and some, not all are members of the FAAA. You are correct the FAAA advised that members should not undertake work but some did and what did the FAAA do, nothing as usual.
Your information is incorrect as pointed out by PP. You are pushing your own agenda here, furthermore it is clear you are prepared to erode the salaries and conditions of existing cabin crew to protect your future, so dont lecture me.
Geoff Dixon has stated for some time now that in terms of cabin crew the FAAA are to blame for the current state of play. The FAAA negotiated the Virgin EBA with salaries and conditions along way apart from Qantas and Ansett (at the time). Than when Impulse was brought into the Qantas family the FAAA couldnt very well turn around and expect Qantas to pay Impulse crew the same as Short Haul due to what they did with Virgin. So we had another major jet operation that is a cheaper alternative to Short Haul cabin crew. Thus the start of lower salaries and conditions.
As for the whole redundancy issue, the surplus was effecting both the long and short division and both unions were involved when it came to Leave without pay, part time etc so I dont think the domestic/regional division can take the praise for that one.
You are right Mr Seatback there are thousands of people out there willing to push us out an emergency exit to get our jobs and they will do it for half the price, you are obviously one of these people, if you are prepared to "accept lower conditions".
Ditzyboy
The FAAA has done nothing for me, I am a permanent short haul flight attendant without there help and for your information I have made my thoughts VERY VERY clear to the FAAA and the response I received was "your comments are noted".
But if you want to talk about the FAAA and the REAL QFlink regionals look what they have done for Eastern recently, yeah right they are right behind their members they really listened to them didnt they, they washed their hands of them and allowed QF to blackmail them. Thats what I call support.
Let me also tell you the FAAA are in fact very worried about their own survival and their own jobs.
SydGirl is not alone in her thoughts a very large percentage of short haul crew feel the same. I was disgusted that members of the FAAA domestic/regional division namely MAM crew were used as strike breakers. At the very least their membership should have been cancelled.
lexus1
I dont think pulling out a document that dated back to the old Australian Airlines day relating to Southern, Eastern and Sunstate can be regarded as a job well done by the current FAAA. Thanks to the forsight of the FAAA at the time (which I think from memory also included long haul) to ensure such a document existed to protect the regionals from the tatics QF used when they decided to merge Southern with Eastern. That was an example of a strong, effective and relevant union AT THE TIME many moons ago.
I dont know where you get your information from but members of the FAAA domestic/regional division did in fact work as strike breakers during the long haul strike. They were MAM crew as you surely must be aware and some, not all are members of the FAAA. You are correct the FAAA advised that members should not undertake work but some did and what did the FAAA do, nothing as usual.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GalleyHag
You have really been sucked in by Dixons propaganda. What were the salaries and conditions for Virgin and Impulse like before the FAAA negotiated EBAs for them.
Virgin - around $25000 with basic conditions based on CASA requirements
Impulse - $22000 ish as unit holders in a shelf company.
I suppose Dixon would have prefered that the FAAA stayed away and let these companies continue to exploit these crew.
The FAAA has continued to push for fair and reasonable salaries and conditions for these members.
On your claim regarding the agreement which required QF to transfer Southern crew to QF mainline on Southern closure. 3 of the 4 present Federal office bearers were elected official at time time the agreement was drafted. Also, the Industrial staff member who wrote the agreement is still employed by the Domestic/Regional division.
Having an agreement is one thing, making QF abide by it is another. If the Domestic/Regional division is so weak why didn't QF tell them to stick the agreement and treat the southern crew the same disgraceful way that they did other Southern staff.
On the issue of the L/H stopwork meeting. (it was not a strike as you stated). Longhaul were taking legally protected action as they were in a bargaining period. For the Domestic/Regional division to have taken action would have been considered a secondary boycott and illegal. Fines for this action can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and can be imposed on the union, it's officials and it's members. Do you really expect your elected officials to expose it's members in this way.
We must not lose sight of who the enemy is here. It is QF who is trying to reduce our salaries and conditions. It is QF who put those MAM people in that impossible position. We must all stand united. The FAAA is not the enemy. They are there to fight for you. We can either support them and fight QF as a united group or die a slow death as a divided, self interested group.
If you have personal issues with the FAAA, talk to then. If you can't resolve them, put your hand up and get involved.
You have really been sucked in by Dixons propaganda. What were the salaries and conditions for Virgin and Impulse like before the FAAA negotiated EBAs for them.
Virgin - around $25000 with basic conditions based on CASA requirements
Impulse - $22000 ish as unit holders in a shelf company.
I suppose Dixon would have prefered that the FAAA stayed away and let these companies continue to exploit these crew.
The FAAA has continued to push for fair and reasonable salaries and conditions for these members.
On your claim regarding the agreement which required QF to transfer Southern crew to QF mainline on Southern closure. 3 of the 4 present Federal office bearers were elected official at time time the agreement was drafted. Also, the Industrial staff member who wrote the agreement is still employed by the Domestic/Regional division.
Having an agreement is one thing, making QF abide by it is another. If the Domestic/Regional division is so weak why didn't QF tell them to stick the agreement and treat the southern crew the same disgraceful way that they did other Southern staff.
On the issue of the L/H stopwork meeting. (it was not a strike as you stated). Longhaul were taking legally protected action as they were in a bargaining period. For the Domestic/Regional division to have taken action would have been considered a secondary boycott and illegal. Fines for this action can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and can be imposed on the union, it's officials and it's members. Do you really expect your elected officials to expose it's members in this way.
We must not lose sight of who the enemy is here. It is QF who is trying to reduce our salaries and conditions. It is QF who put those MAM people in that impossible position. We must all stand united. The FAAA is not the enemy. They are there to fight for you. We can either support them and fight QF as a united group or die a slow death as a divided, self interested group.
If you have personal issues with the FAAA, talk to then. If you can't resolve them, put your hand up and get involved.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a difference a two day trip makes!
Okay people...I've read your replies...bless your little hearts.
(deep sigh)
GalleyHag - pushing an agenda? I can't even phrase the correct response to this without resorting to offensive language. So I'll keep my answer succinct:
a) I'm not prepared to accept lower conditions. Period - even if it threatens my employment. I however am in a minority.
b) Conversely, however, what choice do we have when it is so abundantly clear that everyone has their own ideas of how things should be with a clear dislike for the FAAA - the sole representative body for FAs? Division = opportunity for Dixon.
c) If you read my original post on this thread carefully, I was referring specifically to Short Haul's surplus. No mention of Long Haul, nor of the division(s) responsible for determining on how to handle the surplus. Yes, both were responsible which was why I wrote "The FAAA".
d) The Virgin EBA (as it stands currently) does not impose any gulf in wages between Cabin Crew (except for those in Years 7 + pay scales). I and others have done the calculations, based on take home pay. Sometimes, the Virgin Crew take home more than Short Haul.
The Virgin/Geoff Dixon "We must bring costs down 30% to match Virgin" mantra does not apply appropriately to Cabin Crew.
Were it not for the FAAA, you'd probably see Virgin Blue gleefully rubbing their hands together for getting their crew onto individual contracts/AWA's, as opposed to EBA's. THEN we'd see some eroded conditions.
Peanut Pusher
Of the many meetings I attended, I was informed by Qantas management that the surplus in Short Haul had reached somewhere in the region of 300. Maybe they were wrong. You obviously weren't at these meetings - so who knows.
If the numbers I provided as part of this debate are in any way incorrect, I apologise, as I only publish facts/figures as they have been provided to me.
With the exception of the obvious disparity between our surplus numbers, would you mind pointing out where else I was wrong? According to my contacts at Qantas Ops, the flight disruption arising from the stopwork was minimal. Sadly.
SydGirl
As has been stated, the FAAA Domestic/Regional instructed all the MAMer's not to do it. Some did. Life's like that.
Prior to the Howard Govt getting in, with the respective overhaul of the Workplace Relations Act, it would have been the norm for all other subsidiaries to strike/stopwork. Secondary boycotts are now illegal. Hands are tied, and you have Reithy to thank for that.
Appreciate your frustration, but Dixon is simply playing one group off against the other. And why not, when this much division exists?
In short, may I make the following points that I feel need to be made:
Making personal attacks on each other does nothing - it certainly achieves nothing. I note with some hilarity that there are individuals on this thread who seem to take glee in finding out where I go wrong in my posts. Whatever.
Further, why attack each other, when these efforts could be put to better use - such as defending our conditions and employment as opposed to them being eroded?
We're never going to all agree on this matter - but the course this thread is taking is nothing short of alarming, and in the long term, dangerous.
United we stand, divided we beg - so true, and how divided are we now?
PS. I would have resorted to name calling, sarcastic remarks, etc. in this post were it not for the fact that I am able to step back and be mature about my approach.
And then I asked myself a question - would I have felt better if I had unleashed my response? Yes, certainly. But is it something that I should do to my peers in the same industry/employment group? No. Because it's childish, and we are all above that. I would certainly hope that respect and decorum are not dead yet.
Okay people...I've read your replies...bless your little hearts.
(deep sigh)
GalleyHag - pushing an agenda? I can't even phrase the correct response to this without resorting to offensive language. So I'll keep my answer succinct:
a) I'm not prepared to accept lower conditions. Period - even if it threatens my employment. I however am in a minority.
b) Conversely, however, what choice do we have when it is so abundantly clear that everyone has their own ideas of how things should be with a clear dislike for the FAAA - the sole representative body for FAs? Division = opportunity for Dixon.
c) If you read my original post on this thread carefully, I was referring specifically to Short Haul's surplus. No mention of Long Haul, nor of the division(s) responsible for determining on how to handle the surplus. Yes, both were responsible which was why I wrote "The FAAA".
d) The Virgin EBA (as it stands currently) does not impose any gulf in wages between Cabin Crew (except for those in Years 7 + pay scales). I and others have done the calculations, based on take home pay. Sometimes, the Virgin Crew take home more than Short Haul.
The Virgin/Geoff Dixon "We must bring costs down 30% to match Virgin" mantra does not apply appropriately to Cabin Crew.
Were it not for the FAAA, you'd probably see Virgin Blue gleefully rubbing their hands together for getting their crew onto individual contracts/AWA's, as opposed to EBA's. THEN we'd see some eroded conditions.
Peanut Pusher
Of the many meetings I attended, I was informed by Qantas management that the surplus in Short Haul had reached somewhere in the region of 300. Maybe they were wrong. You obviously weren't at these meetings - so who knows.
If the numbers I provided as part of this debate are in any way incorrect, I apologise, as I only publish facts/figures as they have been provided to me.
With the exception of the obvious disparity between our surplus numbers, would you mind pointing out where else I was wrong? According to my contacts at Qantas Ops, the flight disruption arising from the stopwork was minimal. Sadly.
SydGirl
As has been stated, the FAAA Domestic/Regional instructed all the MAMer's not to do it. Some did. Life's like that.
Prior to the Howard Govt getting in, with the respective overhaul of the Workplace Relations Act, it would have been the norm for all other subsidiaries to strike/stopwork. Secondary boycotts are now illegal. Hands are tied, and you have Reithy to thank for that.
Appreciate your frustration, but Dixon is simply playing one group off against the other. And why not, when this much division exists?
In short, may I make the following points that I feel need to be made:
Making personal attacks on each other does nothing - it certainly achieves nothing. I note with some hilarity that there are individuals on this thread who seem to take glee in finding out where I go wrong in my posts. Whatever.
Further, why attack each other, when these efforts could be put to better use - such as defending our conditions and employment as opposed to them being eroded?
We're never going to all agree on this matter - but the course this thread is taking is nothing short of alarming, and in the long term, dangerous.
United we stand, divided we beg - so true, and how divided are we now?
PS. I would have resorted to name calling, sarcastic remarks, etc. in this post were it not for the fact that I am able to step back and be mature about my approach.
And then I asked myself a question - would I have felt better if I had unleashed my response? Yes, certainly. But is it something that I should do to my peers in the same industry/employment group? No. Because it's childish, and we are all above that. I would certainly hope that respect and decorum are not dead yet.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GalleyHag -
Thanks for clearing that up re. your employment with SH. It was just guess. My apologies.
One thing. Could you please refrain from such comments as "the REAL QF regionals..." there are much more diplomatic and less offensive ways to say it. Right up there with your comment about Pulse pilots not having a REAL uniform. There is no place for that comment. It is so spiteful and without cause. I don't think I have seen anyone on here try to set you off delibirately. Why do you choose to do the same. You seem quite a clever person who would be above that.
I agree totally with your sentiments regarding the MAM strikebreakers. Personal opinion.
The EAA members voted in the EBA. Whilst I am not fully aware of the ins and outs of their negotiation process it is up to the members whether or not they accept what's on offer. I don't think anyone could of forseen SARS and the LCC coming and the effect they would have on career progression.
The Impulse EBA was constructed before we were a Qantas owned company and therefore justifiably similar to Virgin's. Low cost single aircraft airline. As a QantasLink regional jet operation our EBA is still quite relevent given that it mimics that of NJS. The administration of both awards is quite different thought at the end of the day our salary and conditions are similar. That award was establish 10 years ago when they started the Airlink contract. Perhaps it is NJS who lowered the standard? I don't believe so but that's what you're saying. Low cost operations (being single aircraft endorsed and reduced product etc...) and regional operations are very specific fields without the scope of the position you are in now. Hence the difference in awards. Also compare what a 2nd year SH FA earns against a 2nd year Pulse or Virgin FA. You might be surprised.
Can I just reiterate that they Impulse award is very applicable to our operation. As far as I can see the Impulse award is at the same level of Virgin and NJS. A low cost airline and a regional jet airline. We are BOTH those things. If we started flying two class 737s on MEL-SYD-BNE then yes we would be accepting lower conditions (as the SH award is the going rate) and undermining SH cabin crew. Not the case though.
I am keen for your thoughts on what I said above. There is always another angle and I would love to read anything constructive you have to say. Thanks.
GalleyHag you seem to have much passion in this area. I imagine your energies directed through the FAAA could only benefit everyone's cause. Qantas are only going to listen to us through the union. It is up to people like you who give half a damn to make sure their concern's are heard. Only one way to do that. Get involved. Speaking against the FAAA will not help you out or the Qantas Group FAs as a whole. Fact.
Thanks for clearing that up re. your employment with SH. It was just guess. My apologies.
One thing. Could you please refrain from such comments as "the REAL QF regionals..." there are much more diplomatic and less offensive ways to say it. Right up there with your comment about Pulse pilots not having a REAL uniform. There is no place for that comment. It is so spiteful and without cause. I don't think I have seen anyone on here try to set you off delibirately. Why do you choose to do the same. You seem quite a clever person who would be above that.
I agree totally with your sentiments regarding the MAM strikebreakers. Personal opinion.
The EAA members voted in the EBA. Whilst I am not fully aware of the ins and outs of their negotiation process it is up to the members whether or not they accept what's on offer. I don't think anyone could of forseen SARS and the LCC coming and the effect they would have on career progression.
The Impulse EBA was constructed before we were a Qantas owned company and therefore justifiably similar to Virgin's. Low cost single aircraft airline. As a QantasLink regional jet operation our EBA is still quite relevent given that it mimics that of NJS. The administration of both awards is quite different thought at the end of the day our salary and conditions are similar. That award was establish 10 years ago when they started the Airlink contract. Perhaps it is NJS who lowered the standard? I don't believe so but that's what you're saying. Low cost operations (being single aircraft endorsed and reduced product etc...) and regional operations are very specific fields without the scope of the position you are in now. Hence the difference in awards. Also compare what a 2nd year SH FA earns against a 2nd year Pulse or Virgin FA. You might be surprised.
Can I just reiterate that they Impulse award is very applicable to our operation. As far as I can see the Impulse award is at the same level of Virgin and NJS. A low cost airline and a regional jet airline. We are BOTH those things. If we started flying two class 737s on MEL-SYD-BNE then yes we would be accepting lower conditions (as the SH award is the going rate) and undermining SH cabin crew. Not the case though.
I am keen for your thoughts on what I said above. There is always another angle and I would love to read anything constructive you have to say. Thanks.
GalleyHag you seem to have much passion in this area. I imagine your energies directed through the FAAA could only benefit everyone's cause. Qantas are only going to listen to us through the union. It is up to people like you who give half a damn to make sure their concern's are heard. Only one way to do that. Get involved. Speaking against the FAAA will not help you out or the Qantas Group FAs as a whole. Fact.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't sit back and read all of this that you are all bandying around without offering some mere advise! We exAN F/A's used to talk exactly like this in the galley every day at work and in the end got us nowhere. You MUST all try and stay completely focused on exactly what this company of yours is doing to you all. They don't give two hoots about how they get their costs down , even if it means Screwing you to the wall. The union , which was once ours as well, kept us ALL completely in the dark until it was all too late. Look where that got our company. If QF have an agenda you will be the last to know unless you start to get some strong willed and VERY trustworthy F/A's in "the know" and enable you to be prepared for anything!!
Look where we are right now, we are still waiting for any kind of monies from all this bull****, and the union are still taking our fees telling us that they are fighting for this!!! At the end of the day the union can't fight for your rights if there is no company left to fight for, and by the sounds of what QF are up to they are trying scale down on their "expensive" airline and weasle in a "cheaper" version. All I will say is be careful because these big companies know what they are doing!!
Good luck to you all ! I hope all goes well as I am also one of the many on the Waitlist.
P.s. Just to let you know they are holding AO interviews in ADL this WED. Morning
Look where we are right now, we are still waiting for any kind of monies from all this bull****, and the union are still taking our fees telling us that they are fighting for this!!! At the end of the day the union can't fight for your rights if there is no company left to fight for, and by the sounds of what QF are up to they are trying scale down on their "expensive" airline and weasle in a "cheaper" version. All I will say is be careful because these big companies know what they are doing!!
Good luck to you all ! I hope all goes well as I am also one of the many on the Waitlist.
P.s. Just to let you know they are holding AO interviews in ADL this WED. Morning
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QF have an agenda
Of course QF have an agenda, the agenda being to undermine the EBA system by starting a new company.
You may be very bitter about AN (my family is a victim), but you are sniping at the union? WTF???
Better get your act together people (BTW a union can only be reactive, generally just trying to maintain the status quo these days. Thank IR laws for that). Better start thinking how you can help the union achieve your (common) aims, because if everyone continues with the union sniping and me, me, me, you will lose.
Beware mangers bearing gifts (case in point- QfLink. Accept a lower pay rise to keep career progression? 20/20 hindsight, I know, but the managers only offered you that knowing full well that there would be no SH to progress to. You have to understand the scruples of these people. They think they are being clever.)