Qantas London base
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SYD
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just finished my training with QF and spoke with an industrial relations lawyer today regarding my position being a fixed term employee and industrial action.
He indicated that I could take industrial action if its protected, however he pointed out that I (and presumably other fixed term employees) will still be in our probation period when the industrial action may take place.
Apparently, this could result in Qantas giving me the flick during the probation period if I do anything that they don't like.
The lawyer said that an employer can't "punish" an employee who takes protected action as such, but regardless of whether the action is protected or not, Qantas have their failsafe for many of the fixed term employee's - the probation period! If I'm not "working out" I can be let go.
Obviously, this presents a bit of a quandary for me and I'll have to see what happens when the time comes. I mean I literally can't afford to be let go this early in my time with Qantas.
Although I'm based in Sydney and there are other people in my situation I'm a bit scared to raise it around QCC for obvious reasons - do any other fixed term employee's have any thoughts on this???
He indicated that I could take industrial action if its protected, however he pointed out that I (and presumably other fixed term employees) will still be in our probation period when the industrial action may take place.
Apparently, this could result in Qantas giving me the flick during the probation period if I do anything that they don't like.
The lawyer said that an employer can't "punish" an employee who takes protected action as such, but regardless of whether the action is protected or not, Qantas have their failsafe for many of the fixed term employee's - the probation period! If I'm not "working out" I can be let go.
Obviously, this presents a bit of a quandary for me and I'll have to see what happens when the time comes. I mean I literally can't afford to be let go this early in my time with Qantas.
Although I'm based in Sydney and there are other people in my situation I'm a bit scared to raise it around QCC for obvious reasons - do any other fixed term employee's have any thoughts on this???
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
str, I hope for your sake you are right. The sort of things I'm thinking about are; QANTAS discontinuing the route, then wetleasing the flight to QUK who fly the UK legs of the routes under a spurious code-share (I realise there would be complications such as route-rights, slots etc. but where there is a will.....). How robust is the agreement when applied outside the jurisdiction of the federal court? If you fail to reach agreement on the cap, and it proceeds to arbitration, what will happen- ie. will the clause be struck out or the cap merely raised? In my (limited)experience of industrial relations, you sometimes cannot see things coming because you simply can't imagine that they would sink that low ( questioning/challenging intent of clauses that are quite clear etc.).
They will.
Good luck- and don't forget the PR front. It can have the biggest effect on the battle. Get the public behind you, and the politicians will fall in behind.
They will.
Good luck- and don't forget the PR front. It can have the biggest effect on the battle. Get the public behind you, and the politicians will fall in behind.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found out today that Qantas want flying out of the London base to start on the 28th Feb and not mid June as they have been saying.
I also discovered that the clause in the EBA relating to the cap of 370 is the only part of the agreement which DOES expire on the 17th Dec 2004.
This mean the company CAN from Dec 18th 2004 hire as many O/S crew as it wishes. V V bad news but will make myself and other crew ever more determined to fight this massive attack on our conditions.
I also discovered that the clause in the EBA relating to the cap of 370 is the only part of the agreement which DOES expire on the 17th Dec 2004.
This mean the company CAN from Dec 18th 2004 hire as many O/S crew as it wishes. V V bad news but will make myself and other crew ever more determined to fight this massive attack on our conditions.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shareholder Vote
What is every Longhaul Crew Member going to do with their shareholder vote?Not waste it I hope!Perhaps everyone should give their proxy to Mijatov or SmedleyThey were the voices of reason during the last EBA.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainrats, I will be voting NO, why should the pigs get any more money when I will be struggling to pay my mortgage next year?
I'll be making sure all crew I fly with are aware of this too and yesterday I received an email on the crew trip swap list advising me to vote no. A huge percentage of crew are subscribed to this list so will have received it to.
I just read this on crikey.com.au - if its true that training is being compressed to 12 nights (7pm-7am) then I think CASA need to investigate. I wouldn't want to be operating with any of these crew.
----------
And judging by the leaks, emails and other comments from inside and around Qantas, there is growing uncertainty about what will happen later this year domestically, and internationally when the London base for international long haul cabin crew is supposed to start.
The latest comment below shows that Qantas is playing hardball with attendants and prepared to take risks in preparing for that staff brawl in December. The correspondent says they talked to a "young girl last night (this was received two days ago) who starts training as a long haul flight attendant on the 27/9/04. She is on a three month contract starting 11/12/04, which is the week prior to the current long haul flight attendant enterprise bargain expiry. Once her three month contract is finished she will be back out there having to look for a new job.
Her training, which is usually seven weeks for new recruits, will run for 12 nights. She starts every night at 7pm through to 7am.
When she questioned the odd hours of the training course she was told "well, we need to see how you handle the shift work". Strange, I would have thought daylight hours a more optimum learning time for things like fire fighting on board an aircraft, management of medical emergencies, killing hijackers and the all important emergency evacuation procedures.
Don't forget Qantas flight attendants have had a couple of those to contend with in the last couple of years. Do Qantas customers, in times of heightened security, want flight attendants who were trained through a sleepy fog?
This new recruit has also been told there is a chance she will do NO flying over the course of the three month contract and will be sitting at home on minimum wage. But try telling a young girl who has always wanted to be a flight attendant that working under these conditions might not be such a great career move. It's obvious Qantas management are arming themselves for an all out civil war over Christmas/New Year and corporate greed is blinding them to the fact that treating young workers so awfully is not in keeping with "the Spirit Of Australia".
And a reminder, this is what was published in Monday's sealed section:
We've been reporting the preparations At Qantas for a possible brawl with its flight attendants in December when the London-based international crewing operation is due to start. This is what we published last week:
The airline is going into defensive mode. With the proposed London base (49 have signed up for 480 slots) and the expected industrial troubles with the international cabin crew at Christmas, the 'black widow' (otherwise known as Lesley Grant GM customer service) has moved domestic crew to all regional flying on Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 767 (Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo) from October onwards. At the same time she offers leave without pay to international crew. In addition she has trained 700 strike breakers on fixed term contracts (in addition to office staff) for 10 months.
More information has now emerged about the argument between the airline, the Flight Attendants Association and Long Haul cabin crew.
Effective October 4, all Airbus A300 300 flights will be crewed by Short Haul (cabin crew). No changes to Boeing 767 crews have been announced, but with Airbus replacing 767s upon delivery there is probably no need for Qantas to do anything. It will happen naturally.
Award conditions already exist for Overseas Bases, The FAAA however, has concerns over the new proposed conditions for a 2 year base in London, such as, requirement to work additional hours for no pay which Qantas calls roster efficiencies. Then there's a requirement to take leave without pay from Qantas and be contracted to another company, Qantas Cabin Crew UK Ltd.
Qantas will cease contributions to superannuation. Long Service Leave will not accumulate. To be fair no Flight Attendants are forced to go, it is voluntary, [so far] hence the low volume of applications less than 100. However, the real issue not made known in the media, as you have pointed out, is the fact that Qantas wants no cap on number of Flight Attendants employed overseas and plans to phase in British attendants in increasing numbers to replace Australians over the 2 year period.
The announced 480 positions won't be sufficient anyway and the recently employed Australians on 11 month contracts would not be required after that time.
I'll be making sure all crew I fly with are aware of this too and yesterday I received an email on the crew trip swap list advising me to vote no. A huge percentage of crew are subscribed to this list so will have received it to.
I just read this on crikey.com.au - if its true that training is being compressed to 12 nights (7pm-7am) then I think CASA need to investigate. I wouldn't want to be operating with any of these crew.
----------
And judging by the leaks, emails and other comments from inside and around Qantas, there is growing uncertainty about what will happen later this year domestically, and internationally when the London base for international long haul cabin crew is supposed to start.
The latest comment below shows that Qantas is playing hardball with attendants and prepared to take risks in preparing for that staff brawl in December. The correspondent says they talked to a "young girl last night (this was received two days ago) who starts training as a long haul flight attendant on the 27/9/04. She is on a three month contract starting 11/12/04, which is the week prior to the current long haul flight attendant enterprise bargain expiry. Once her three month contract is finished she will be back out there having to look for a new job.
Her training, which is usually seven weeks for new recruits, will run for 12 nights. She starts every night at 7pm through to 7am.
When she questioned the odd hours of the training course she was told "well, we need to see how you handle the shift work". Strange, I would have thought daylight hours a more optimum learning time for things like fire fighting on board an aircraft, management of medical emergencies, killing hijackers and the all important emergency evacuation procedures.
Don't forget Qantas flight attendants have had a couple of those to contend with in the last couple of years. Do Qantas customers, in times of heightened security, want flight attendants who were trained through a sleepy fog?
This new recruit has also been told there is a chance she will do NO flying over the course of the three month contract and will be sitting at home on minimum wage. But try telling a young girl who has always wanted to be a flight attendant that working under these conditions might not be such a great career move. It's obvious Qantas management are arming themselves for an all out civil war over Christmas/New Year and corporate greed is blinding them to the fact that treating young workers so awfully is not in keeping with "the Spirit Of Australia".
And a reminder, this is what was published in Monday's sealed section:
We've been reporting the preparations At Qantas for a possible brawl with its flight attendants in December when the London-based international crewing operation is due to start. This is what we published last week:
The airline is going into defensive mode. With the proposed London base (49 have signed up for 480 slots) and the expected industrial troubles with the international cabin crew at Christmas, the 'black widow' (otherwise known as Lesley Grant GM customer service) has moved domestic crew to all regional flying on Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 767 (Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo) from October onwards. At the same time she offers leave without pay to international crew. In addition she has trained 700 strike breakers on fixed term contracts (in addition to office staff) for 10 months.
More information has now emerged about the argument between the airline, the Flight Attendants Association and Long Haul cabin crew.
Effective October 4, all Airbus A300 300 flights will be crewed by Short Haul (cabin crew). No changes to Boeing 767 crews have been announced, but with Airbus replacing 767s upon delivery there is probably no need for Qantas to do anything. It will happen naturally.
Award conditions already exist for Overseas Bases, The FAAA however, has concerns over the new proposed conditions for a 2 year base in London, such as, requirement to work additional hours for no pay which Qantas calls roster efficiencies. Then there's a requirement to take leave without pay from Qantas and be contracted to another company, Qantas Cabin Crew UK Ltd.
Qantas will cease contributions to superannuation. Long Service Leave will not accumulate. To be fair no Flight Attendants are forced to go, it is voluntary, [so far] hence the low volume of applications less than 100. However, the real issue not made known in the media, as you have pointed out, is the fact that Qantas wants no cap on number of Flight Attendants employed overseas and plans to phase in British attendants in increasing numbers to replace Australians over the 2 year period.
The announced 480 positions won't be sufficient anyway and the recently employed Australians on 11 month contracts would not be required after that time.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody please explain "Lets screw the roo"?
Who exactly are you aiming to screw - the share holders, directors, or the 30000 odd staff who work there? Who do you really think you are screwing the most? My guess would be yourselves and the other 27000 staff who rely on an income to survive.
Think about it before you get too carried away with your own sense of self importance.
Who exactly are you aiming to screw - the share holders, directors, or the 30000 odd staff who work there? Who do you really think you are screwing the most? My guess would be yourselves and the other 27000 staff who rely on an income to survive.
Think about it before you get too carried away with your own sense of self importance.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OBNO
Totally agree.
But QF management isn't sitting on its hands. In Saturday’s SMH (p.8), QANTAS has an ad for a “Corporate Change Communicator” to support 'culture change'.
The first two paragraphs tell the reader in effusive management consultant double speak that QANTAS, “one of Australia’s foremost employers of choice”, is looking for some silver tongued individual to “deliver highly effective communications to employees”; as well as “enlisting internal ‘champions’ to educate their peers on the benefits and value of the change program”.
But the punch line comes in the third para. According to the Ad:
Doubtless, one of the first jobs for the successful applicant will be to seek out the perpetrators of the 'Screw the Roo' mantra, and remind them in a 'funky' manner that any person who commits an act of bestiality with any animal shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years - S79, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Totally agree.
But QF management isn't sitting on its hands. In Saturday’s SMH (p.8), QANTAS has an ad for a “Corporate Change Communicator” to support 'culture change'.
The first two paragraphs tell the reader in effusive management consultant double speak that QANTAS, “one of Australia’s foremost employers of choice”, is looking for some silver tongued individual to “deliver highly effective communications to employees”; as well as “enlisting internal ‘champions’ to educate their peers on the benefits and value of the change program”.
But the punch line comes in the third para. According to the Ad:
You must be a proactive, imaginative and creative employee communications professional who will bring innovation to the communications role. You will build on the morale of the employees by injecting a 'funky' (yes 'funky') approach to key issues and communications material.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
we havnt seen or heard much of you around these parts lately.
Nice to see that you are still doing your best to defend the indefensible.
The following is a cut and past from the D&G section in response to your thread on QF's need for a new spin doctor.
Pretty much sums up the situation perfectly dont you think?
Quote from Bonvol-
posted 25th September 2004 05:43 ___ _ _ __ _
Translation..
Corporate Spin Doctor Required.
Duties
To communicate Corporate BS to the slaves in a good cop manner that will promote a semblance of loyalty, respect and trust in management even though they don't deserve it.
Qualifications
A proven ability to pull the wool over the slaves eyes so that they will unquestionably follow management edicts in the belief that it's for their own good.
Experience in jumping from Union Official to Management will be highly regarded.
Remuneration
An attractive salary is offered along with the usual lurks and perks that are only reserved for top executives. A performance bonus will be paid as a proportion of how cost effectively the workers take their medicine whilst delivering worlds best practise and profits for our most valued shareholders, ie your fellow executives.
Come and get your snout in the trough too!
End quote
L2P "screw the roo"
we havnt seen or heard much of you around these parts lately.
Nice to see that you are still doing your best to defend the indefensible.
The following is a cut and past from the D&G section in response to your thread on QF's need for a new spin doctor.
Pretty much sums up the situation perfectly dont you think?
Quote from Bonvol-
posted 25th September 2004 05:43 ___ _ _ __ _
Translation..
Corporate Spin Doctor Required.
Duties
To communicate Corporate BS to the slaves in a good cop manner that will promote a semblance of loyalty, respect and trust in management even though they don't deserve it.
Qualifications
A proven ability to pull the wool over the slaves eyes so that they will unquestionably follow management edicts in the belief that it's for their own good.
Experience in jumping from Union Official to Management will be highly regarded.
Remuneration
An attractive salary is offered along with the usual lurks and perks that are only reserved for top executives. A performance bonus will be paid as a proportion of how cost effectively the workers take their medicine whilst delivering worlds best practise and profits for our most valued shareholders, ie your fellow executives.
Come and get your snout in the trough too!
End quote
L2P "screw the roo"
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left2primary
Nice to hear from you again. To quote Pink Floyd, I see you are still the same "... lost soul in a goldfish bowl, year after year, going over the same old ground etc ...".
Nice to hear from you again. To quote Pink Floyd, I see you are still the same "... lost soul in a goldfish bowl, year after year, going over the same old ground etc ...".
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left2primary
Nice try, old son, but, as usual, long on rhetoric, short on fact. Read both my QF Corporate Change Communicator posts again. Put any pre-conceived ideas you have to one side. Look for irony and sarcasm. You might even conclude I was having a dig at QF and management consultants this time.
You are, however, correct when you say that I haven't been around recently on this topic. You are well aware of my views on QF cabin service and lack of customer focus of some staff. I've re-read your more recent posts on this thread. I doubt if there’s anything I can add to what I’ve said previously that would cause you and some of your colleagues to reflect on the wisdom of the course of action you seem hell bent on taking.
There's an old Greek saying: “Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad”. Enjoy the trip!
Nice try, old son, but, as usual, long on rhetoric, short on fact. Read both my QF Corporate Change Communicator posts again. Put any pre-conceived ideas you have to one side. Look for irony and sarcasm. You might even conclude I was having a dig at QF and management consultants this time.
You are, however, correct when you say that I haven't been around recently on this topic. You are well aware of my views on QF cabin service and lack of customer focus of some staff. I've re-read your more recent posts on this thread. I doubt if there’s anything I can add to what I’ve said previously that would cause you and some of your colleagues to reflect on the wisdom of the course of action you seem hell bent on taking.
There's an old Greek saying: “Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad”. Enjoy the trip!
Last edited by Argus; 27th Sep 2004 at 07:42.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, long-time reader, first time poster here 
I have read all of the posts regarding the QF situation, and as someone who has been flying for QF Long Haul for more years than I care to admit I was a member of the union well before it became the 'FAAA', and still am. I thought I would put another opinion up on here rather than the the 'screw the roo' opinions of L2P and the rest. There are other opinions amongst QF Long Haulers than the few millitant posters on here. This is mine.
Not everyone agrees with this 'screw the roo' attitude, in fact you will find that those attitudes will eventually make the FAAAs case less effective, as the lets strike rantings of some people out there at the moment are scaring a lot of crew.
The FAAA, in my opinion, has made the mistake of taking away the 'stealth' aspect of industrial action. by announcing to the press that we are all taking industrial action in December, they have allowed management to be well and truly prepared with a strike-busting force. It would appear that force will be big enough to hold the fort for some time during any protracted industrial action. As has been pointed out, crew are very good at ensuring their personal needs are met, and it would only take one missing paycheck for many crew to head back to work in desperation. Most crew live above their means at the best of times, losing money during the christmas period would hurt a lot of people very badly.
Most of the crew I fly with lately are still discussing the Lhr base, but the focus of discussions seemed to have changed from "how are we going to stop this" to "what sort of trips I will be bidding for after Feb next year". crew that I have flown with lately seem to be of the opinion that the base is a reality. My last trip had a lovely couple on the trip who are taking the Lhr base, the crew were in no way mean to them, in fact all were supportive and a couple jealous that their circumstances wouldnt allow them to go! Dont get me wrong, I dont want the Lhr base to happen, I love my Lhr trips and have done them consistently for my whole flying career. However I also know enough to see that this one is a lost battle already. The base cap does expire in december and there is no way the company will put it back on the table. That is obvious.
The common thing I have read on here is this 'massive attack on our conditions'. It doesnt take an industrial genius to realise that management are - cleverly- not attacking our conditions at all. They are just removing a destination. Yes that will mean less allowances, Long range fying allowance and overtime for us Syd crew, but these allowances additional to our pay have never been guarenteed, nor have any destinations. Management have a very strong case on that point of view. The FAAA will have a very hard time proving that the company by removing a destination is attacking our conditions, as any benefits from flying through to Lhr are just additional to our pay, and not guarenteed.
As I said, I have listened to crew and a lot are scared. It would have been better for the FAAA to whip up a frenzy and call industrial action closer to the time. By announcing the industrial action months in advance, it has allowed crew to get thinking about the likelyhood of success and the consequences of industrial action. More thinking time equals more doubts on that course of action. Personally, I will not be fighting a lost cause, it may seem pesimistic, but I have done a lot of thought on this issue. I always think the advice of not entering a battle you expect to lose is good advice! And have had a lot of years experience with this company, and can see that the Lhr base will not be up for negotiation QF have made their decision.
Anyway, just an opinion. Oh and before I am asked, no I am not management ! Just your average Y class f/a
I have read all of the posts regarding the QF situation, and as someone who has been flying for QF Long Haul for more years than I care to admit I was a member of the union well before it became the 'FAAA', and still am. I thought I would put another opinion up on here rather than the the 'screw the roo' opinions of L2P and the rest. There are other opinions amongst QF Long Haulers than the few millitant posters on here. This is mine.
Not everyone agrees with this 'screw the roo' attitude, in fact you will find that those attitudes will eventually make the FAAAs case less effective, as the lets strike rantings of some people out there at the moment are scaring a lot of crew.
The FAAA, in my opinion, has made the mistake of taking away the 'stealth' aspect of industrial action. by announcing to the press that we are all taking industrial action in December, they have allowed management to be well and truly prepared with a strike-busting force. It would appear that force will be big enough to hold the fort for some time during any protracted industrial action. As has been pointed out, crew are very good at ensuring their personal needs are met, and it would only take one missing paycheck for many crew to head back to work in desperation. Most crew live above their means at the best of times, losing money during the christmas period would hurt a lot of people very badly.
Most of the crew I fly with lately are still discussing the Lhr base, but the focus of discussions seemed to have changed from "how are we going to stop this" to "what sort of trips I will be bidding for after Feb next year". crew that I have flown with lately seem to be of the opinion that the base is a reality. My last trip had a lovely couple on the trip who are taking the Lhr base, the crew were in no way mean to them, in fact all were supportive and a couple jealous that their circumstances wouldnt allow them to go! Dont get me wrong, I dont want the Lhr base to happen, I love my Lhr trips and have done them consistently for my whole flying career. However I also know enough to see that this one is a lost battle already. The base cap does expire in december and there is no way the company will put it back on the table. That is obvious.
The common thing I have read on here is this 'massive attack on our conditions'. It doesnt take an industrial genius to realise that management are - cleverly- not attacking our conditions at all. They are just removing a destination. Yes that will mean less allowances, Long range fying allowance and overtime for us Syd crew, but these allowances additional to our pay have never been guarenteed, nor have any destinations. Management have a very strong case on that point of view. The FAAA will have a very hard time proving that the company by removing a destination is attacking our conditions, as any benefits from flying through to Lhr are just additional to our pay, and not guarenteed.
As I said, I have listened to crew and a lot are scared. It would have been better for the FAAA to whip up a frenzy and call industrial action closer to the time. By announcing the industrial action months in advance, it has allowed crew to get thinking about the likelyhood of success and the consequences of industrial action. More thinking time equals more doubts on that course of action. Personally, I will not be fighting a lost cause, it may seem pesimistic, but I have done a lot of thought on this issue. I always think the advice of not entering a battle you expect to lose is good advice! And have had a lot of years experience with this company, and can see that the Lhr base will not be up for negotiation QF have made their decision.
Anyway, just an opinion. Oh and before I am asked, no I am not management ! Just your average Y class f/a
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chance to air and read a wide variety of opposing views is what makes this forum such an asset.
Robust discussion is fine, personal abuse and gutter language is not.
Please keep that in mind when you feel the red mist descending.
Robust discussion is fine, personal abuse and gutter language is not.
Please keep that in mind when you feel the red mist descending.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my first post -
In July 2004 longhaul FAAA senior executives toured the island and held a series of meetings to get a rubber stamp endorsement of action they, in their wisdom, had decided to take over the upcoming EBA. Stop work meetings and serious strike action over the Xmas period after the EBA expiry date of 17/12 were intimated.
Relevant questions were directed to them from the floor.
At those meetings the FAAA executive made it very clear that they WERE NOT AGAINST THE LONDON BASE OPENING – as long as they got what they believed to be an acceptable “cap” and a redundancy clause in place whereby off –shore based crew were sacked before those on the main island.
When asked how many crew were unionised from Jetstar & Australian airlines re-strike breakers, senior union reps became very agitated and said it was 85%, and why were we asking questions like that?
We asked questions like that because the stop work on 28th Feb 2003 was totally ineffective due to non –unionised and scab labor. Both the union, & more importantly the company, knew that strike action was not going to be effective in the future.
Union execs believed the Company could never find 4,000 people to replace us. It was brought to their attention that the Company didn’t need 4,000 on any given day – just a few hundred – the fact that the FAAA did not have firm figure of how many scabs were needed to undermine their industrial action was worrying.
When asked what Plan B was if strike action failed, union execs said there was no plan B that this was a battle to the death and if we lost, then it meant the destruction of our Union.
Doomsdayers and Armageddon believers!!
Very encouraging for those of us with families and mortgages! The industrial relations officer present said that “at worst, you’ll lose maybe 3 days pay!” Yeh, right, and the Company won’t come back to the table with an agenda of revenge – “see those conditions being offered in London –they are now the norm for SYD – here’s your individual contract – just sign here!”
This present group of FAAA executives has a known track record of their inability to engage in sustained negotiations (they pride themselves on the fact that they physically walked (stormed?) out of the last EBA negotiation meetings with the Company.
The London Base was a legitimate offer made to Australian based Qantas employees.
It’s why we allowed the Base Clause in back in the 1980s so we could all live the London Dream of the late 1970s. (Did crew jump up & down back them when LHR obviously took away SYD based flying? Where are the old chief’s stories when you need them?) Obviously the conditions are tougher – but we are no longer a government run airline.
The Union bureaucrats were asked at the meetings if they would consider negotiating improved conditions on the proposed LHR base and then FILLING IT FULL OF AUSTRALIAN CREW.
They indicated that they wouldn’t be lifting a finger to assist the paid up FAAA members who were considering the LHR offer.
COMMON SENSE SAYS -“FOR EVERY AUSSIE F/A THAT TAKES A POSITION IN LHR – THEN ITS ONE LESS UK NATIONAL THAT TAKES AN AUSTRALIAN JOB!
When it was suggested that this was really about SYD based flying and the loss of SYD based allowances and long range penalties, again Union reps became very defensive.
The LHR base was always going to go ahead and most reasonable members know this. It was a valid business decision made by the company. Just like the closing of Athens, Rome, and Paris – unpopular with crew but necessary for the business to remain profitable.
THE CAP IS CRAP!
It is a band-aid solution that was applied way too late – the horse had bolted. Where was all this righteous indignation and threats of militant industrial action when BKK & AKL bases opened?????
For months we sat around and let Greg bee tell us it was for language requirements
The BKK & AKL bases are an abomination and need to be closed as they are indeed taking Australian jobs away from Australians.
The FAAA rolled over big time on this one – and we all accepted it.
Again many crew who have been around for a while – actually voted on allowing the base clause into our EBAs (believing naively of course that we would be going onto those bases.)
The LHR base won’t suit everyone – (mortgages, kids at school etc) – but it is attractive to many –and would have been eagerly sought –if the union had got off its arse and negotiated better conditions for it.
Instead the senior FAAA executive have done a terrific imitation of an OSTRICH STICKING HIS HEAD IN THE SANDS OF SUSSEX STREET AND SAYING “ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN…….ITS Not..going to…happen…..please tell me its not going to happen……….
If we didn’t want bases we should never have let PER &MEL start either – they have taken away much of SYDs flying – just wait till we realize just how much good flying the BNE base will pinch off SYD
The latest scare tactic by the FAAA – is that promotional paths may be compromised by LHR based crew returning to Australia with CSS &CSM experience - this is extremely rich coming from FAAA executives who got their CSM “red coats “ by back-dooring the upgrade process by going onto the MEL base to achieve their promotions! Hypocrisy has no bounds!
The FAAA needs to re- invent itself. This is not industrial England in the nineteenth century with kids in coal mines. Neither is it the adversarial industrial times of the 1970s the ghosts of Keith Stephens and Gary McGraw still seem to hover over this Union.
Times have changed and a different approach to industrial relations is required.
Old models of industrial disputation are no longer useful.
The Company is in profit and there is much on the table for the FAAA to grab.
As shown by the behaviour of senior management & the non – executive directors at the 2004 AGM, they are getting in for their chop and there’s no reason –with the right team leading the FAAA – which we can’t continue to get our well deserved slice of the pie.
Cabin crew conceded an alleged $A40 productivity gain for the Company with the de-crewing business initiative and the setting up of the LHR will save the company in the vicinity of $18-27m. There is plenty of pie on the table which has been put there by cabin crew – and it is our right and fair to get a large portion of this back in our base salaries and conditions.
Over the last ten years we as a Union have achieved – BUGGER ALL!!.
We willing put in the Base clause which was cunningly exploited by Greg Bee &Co.
We allowed BKK & AKL to open with foreign nationals without a whimper.
We allowed our A/C to be de- crewed by one operator with no real financial compensation.
We allowed an unsupervised J/C bar to come into operation with no opposition (a directive printed on a red piece of paper put the fear of god into marketing management – not!!)
We allowed the divisional structure to disappear and short haul take over our longhaul airbus flying without a murmur.
We allowed Australian Airlines to take our Bali flights without so much as a “by your leave!”
Change is the only constant in this aviation job.
The LHR initiative will hurt some SYD based crew financially – but its always been dangerous basing your pay on allowances (fully expendable in the slip port) and long range allowances which were in place to compensate the f/a for an arduous tour of duty (the removal of the route takes a burden off the f/a as well as the need to pay the allowance.)
Some of us thought we could see our days out living at R5 with no need to go for promotion and subsequent pay and super rises. Unfortunately this one is coming back to bite many of us on the arse when we realize that after 20 years flying , you’re actually still only on a year 7 f/a salary!
There are many that wish it was still 1989 and we were all standing in the lower lobe, Midnight Oil blaring on the CD speakers, having a beer on our way to the 100 hr slip in Tahiti, toasting just how great this job is!
Times have changed, businesses have evolved, hard decisions have to be made, and the “good old days” are a fading image best left for re- unions at Bondi.
The next FAAA executive needs to be a lot smarter than the last few executives we have voted in. For many years now – IT’S BEEN AMATEUR HOUR AT THE FAAA.
Yes, at times it’s a thankless job –requiring many long hours – and there have been many dedicated sincere contributors to this worthwhile cause. (But –like those strange creatures on QCCC level 4 –it has suited the lifestyles of members who don’t really get along with passengers and other crew at close quarters (or who put family life & second businesses before the actual job of long range flying).
BKK & AKL – must eventually be closed down. These are foreign nationals taking Australian jobs. A long term, negotiated settlement should be a priority (the Company knows if it wishes to continue to trade on the Spirit of Australia, this base trend must stop). The bases could be phased out over the life of the next two EBAs. Again – cabin crew have put $60 -70 million worth of savings on the table through the de-crewing & LHR base and we deserve to man our own bases. (BKK &AKL were Strong &Bee’s babies – Mr Dixon with his –“Still Call Aust. Home “& Spirit of Aust. theme knows that overseas nationals are unacceptable as cabin crew if the brand is to remain credible.)
The LHR base offer should have been supported by the FAAA and actively filled with Aussies to ensure it never gets out of our control. Instead by ensuring the offer was only taken up by “the few” (I wouldn’t call 200 applications –“a few”) the FAAA has allowed the Company to place 280 UK nationals into Australian job slots.
They will now turn around to the media and say – “we offered these guys salaries of up to $A90, 000 to go live in London for 2 yrs and they knocked us back”
Yep, Mark Latham’s “aspirational” voters on $35,000 will get right behind the battling f/as of Qantas…so too will the other 35,000 employees of Qantas who believe that cabin crew are the hardest done by bunch in the organization…….
We need a reality check. There are plenty of Jim’s mowing franchises and jobs at our local RSL club pulling beer if we don’t like our conditions at 39,000 ft. That’s not to say we don’t fight for REASONABLE conditions & pay.
It’s the WAY we fight that’s the issue here.
Meanwhile, the punitive, petulant and immature threat of the FAAA to not only suspend – but also actively destroy the seniority of those paid up FAAA members going to LHR – ensures that they have alienated many loyal supporters. I can assure you; the first impulse on returning to Australia will not be ringing the Sussex St office and signing up again to be led by a bunch of pseudo- tough boys.
Mindless industrial militancy and strike threats are not the course of action we need to be taking in 2005. The FAAA has to become more sophisticated and professional if it is to successfully take on the might of corporate Qantas.
This crew of Union officials do not have a mandate to destroy the FAAA. Rumour has it they were elected as a “protest” vote against the poor handling of the last EBA. As usual, thanks to the well known complacency and apathy of cabin crew, most of us took our eye off the ball to allow these people into the Union office.
That’s the beauty of a democracy – there is freedom of choice. We don’t have to be bullied by Union thugs.
Yes, there is strength in solidarity and staying united. Divided we may find it harder to negotiate. But when a couple of blokes with their own personal agenda –savoring the sense of power and their fifteen minutes of fame – decide to take a once representative union down a ruinous road of destruction – then its time for some loyal members to look at what’s good for them & their families and make the appropriate, individual decisions.
In July 2004 longhaul FAAA senior executives toured the island and held a series of meetings to get a rubber stamp endorsement of action they, in their wisdom, had decided to take over the upcoming EBA. Stop work meetings and serious strike action over the Xmas period after the EBA expiry date of 17/12 were intimated.
Relevant questions were directed to them from the floor.
At those meetings the FAAA executive made it very clear that they WERE NOT AGAINST THE LONDON BASE OPENING – as long as they got what they believed to be an acceptable “cap” and a redundancy clause in place whereby off –shore based crew were sacked before those on the main island.
When asked how many crew were unionised from Jetstar & Australian airlines re-strike breakers, senior union reps became very agitated and said it was 85%, and why were we asking questions like that?
We asked questions like that because the stop work on 28th Feb 2003 was totally ineffective due to non –unionised and scab labor. Both the union, & more importantly the company, knew that strike action was not going to be effective in the future.
Union execs believed the Company could never find 4,000 people to replace us. It was brought to their attention that the Company didn’t need 4,000 on any given day – just a few hundred – the fact that the FAAA did not have firm figure of how many scabs were needed to undermine their industrial action was worrying.
When asked what Plan B was if strike action failed, union execs said there was no plan B that this was a battle to the death and if we lost, then it meant the destruction of our Union.
Doomsdayers and Armageddon believers!!
Very encouraging for those of us with families and mortgages! The industrial relations officer present said that “at worst, you’ll lose maybe 3 days pay!” Yeh, right, and the Company won’t come back to the table with an agenda of revenge – “see those conditions being offered in London –they are now the norm for SYD – here’s your individual contract – just sign here!”
This present group of FAAA executives has a known track record of their inability to engage in sustained negotiations (they pride themselves on the fact that they physically walked (stormed?) out of the last EBA negotiation meetings with the Company.
The London Base was a legitimate offer made to Australian based Qantas employees.
It’s why we allowed the Base Clause in back in the 1980s so we could all live the London Dream of the late 1970s. (Did crew jump up & down back them when LHR obviously took away SYD based flying? Where are the old chief’s stories when you need them?) Obviously the conditions are tougher – but we are no longer a government run airline.
The Union bureaucrats were asked at the meetings if they would consider negotiating improved conditions on the proposed LHR base and then FILLING IT FULL OF AUSTRALIAN CREW.
They indicated that they wouldn’t be lifting a finger to assist the paid up FAAA members who were considering the LHR offer.
COMMON SENSE SAYS -“FOR EVERY AUSSIE F/A THAT TAKES A POSITION IN LHR – THEN ITS ONE LESS UK NATIONAL THAT TAKES AN AUSTRALIAN JOB!
When it was suggested that this was really about SYD based flying and the loss of SYD based allowances and long range penalties, again Union reps became very defensive.
The LHR base was always going to go ahead and most reasonable members know this. It was a valid business decision made by the company. Just like the closing of Athens, Rome, and Paris – unpopular with crew but necessary for the business to remain profitable.
THE CAP IS CRAP!
It is a band-aid solution that was applied way too late – the horse had bolted. Where was all this righteous indignation and threats of militant industrial action when BKK & AKL bases opened?????
For months we sat around and let Greg bee tell us it was for language requirements
The BKK & AKL bases are an abomination and need to be closed as they are indeed taking Australian jobs away from Australians.
The FAAA rolled over big time on this one – and we all accepted it.
Again many crew who have been around for a while – actually voted on allowing the base clause into our EBAs (believing naively of course that we would be going onto those bases.)
The LHR base won’t suit everyone – (mortgages, kids at school etc) – but it is attractive to many –and would have been eagerly sought –if the union had got off its arse and negotiated better conditions for it.
Instead the senior FAAA executive have done a terrific imitation of an OSTRICH STICKING HIS HEAD IN THE SANDS OF SUSSEX STREET AND SAYING “ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN…….ITS Not..going to…happen…..please tell me its not going to happen……….
If we didn’t want bases we should never have let PER &MEL start either – they have taken away much of SYDs flying – just wait till we realize just how much good flying the BNE base will pinch off SYD
The latest scare tactic by the FAAA – is that promotional paths may be compromised by LHR based crew returning to Australia with CSS &CSM experience - this is extremely rich coming from FAAA executives who got their CSM “red coats “ by back-dooring the upgrade process by going onto the MEL base to achieve their promotions! Hypocrisy has no bounds!
The FAAA needs to re- invent itself. This is not industrial England in the nineteenth century with kids in coal mines. Neither is it the adversarial industrial times of the 1970s the ghosts of Keith Stephens and Gary McGraw still seem to hover over this Union.
Times have changed and a different approach to industrial relations is required.
Old models of industrial disputation are no longer useful.
The Company is in profit and there is much on the table for the FAAA to grab.
As shown by the behaviour of senior management & the non – executive directors at the 2004 AGM, they are getting in for their chop and there’s no reason –with the right team leading the FAAA – which we can’t continue to get our well deserved slice of the pie.
Cabin crew conceded an alleged $A40 productivity gain for the Company with the de-crewing business initiative and the setting up of the LHR will save the company in the vicinity of $18-27m. There is plenty of pie on the table which has been put there by cabin crew – and it is our right and fair to get a large portion of this back in our base salaries and conditions.
Over the last ten years we as a Union have achieved – BUGGER ALL!!.
We willing put in the Base clause which was cunningly exploited by Greg Bee &Co.
We allowed BKK & AKL to open with foreign nationals without a whimper.
We allowed our A/C to be de- crewed by one operator with no real financial compensation.
We allowed an unsupervised J/C bar to come into operation with no opposition (a directive printed on a red piece of paper put the fear of god into marketing management – not!!)
We allowed the divisional structure to disappear and short haul take over our longhaul airbus flying without a murmur.
We allowed Australian Airlines to take our Bali flights without so much as a “by your leave!”
Change is the only constant in this aviation job.
The LHR initiative will hurt some SYD based crew financially – but its always been dangerous basing your pay on allowances (fully expendable in the slip port) and long range allowances which were in place to compensate the f/a for an arduous tour of duty (the removal of the route takes a burden off the f/a as well as the need to pay the allowance.)
Some of us thought we could see our days out living at R5 with no need to go for promotion and subsequent pay and super rises. Unfortunately this one is coming back to bite many of us on the arse when we realize that after 20 years flying , you’re actually still only on a year 7 f/a salary!
There are many that wish it was still 1989 and we were all standing in the lower lobe, Midnight Oil blaring on the CD speakers, having a beer on our way to the 100 hr slip in Tahiti, toasting just how great this job is!
Times have changed, businesses have evolved, hard decisions have to be made, and the “good old days” are a fading image best left for re- unions at Bondi.
The next FAAA executive needs to be a lot smarter than the last few executives we have voted in. For many years now – IT’S BEEN AMATEUR HOUR AT THE FAAA.
Yes, at times it’s a thankless job –requiring many long hours – and there have been many dedicated sincere contributors to this worthwhile cause. (But –like those strange creatures on QCCC level 4 –it has suited the lifestyles of members who don’t really get along with passengers and other crew at close quarters (or who put family life & second businesses before the actual job of long range flying).
BKK & AKL – must eventually be closed down. These are foreign nationals taking Australian jobs. A long term, negotiated settlement should be a priority (the Company knows if it wishes to continue to trade on the Spirit of Australia, this base trend must stop). The bases could be phased out over the life of the next two EBAs. Again – cabin crew have put $60 -70 million worth of savings on the table through the de-crewing & LHR base and we deserve to man our own bases. (BKK &AKL were Strong &Bee’s babies – Mr Dixon with his –“Still Call Aust. Home “& Spirit of Aust. theme knows that overseas nationals are unacceptable as cabin crew if the brand is to remain credible.)
The LHR base offer should have been supported by the FAAA and actively filled with Aussies to ensure it never gets out of our control. Instead by ensuring the offer was only taken up by “the few” (I wouldn’t call 200 applications –“a few”) the FAAA has allowed the Company to place 280 UK nationals into Australian job slots.
They will now turn around to the media and say – “we offered these guys salaries of up to $A90, 000 to go live in London for 2 yrs and they knocked us back”
Yep, Mark Latham’s “aspirational” voters on $35,000 will get right behind the battling f/as of Qantas…so too will the other 35,000 employees of Qantas who believe that cabin crew are the hardest done by bunch in the organization…….
We need a reality check. There are plenty of Jim’s mowing franchises and jobs at our local RSL club pulling beer if we don’t like our conditions at 39,000 ft. That’s not to say we don’t fight for REASONABLE conditions & pay.
It’s the WAY we fight that’s the issue here.
Meanwhile, the punitive, petulant and immature threat of the FAAA to not only suspend – but also actively destroy the seniority of those paid up FAAA members going to LHR – ensures that they have alienated many loyal supporters. I can assure you; the first impulse on returning to Australia will not be ringing the Sussex St office and signing up again to be led by a bunch of pseudo- tough boys.
Mindless industrial militancy and strike threats are not the course of action we need to be taking in 2005. The FAAA has to become more sophisticated and professional if it is to successfully take on the might of corporate Qantas.
This crew of Union officials do not have a mandate to destroy the FAAA. Rumour has it they were elected as a “protest” vote against the poor handling of the last EBA. As usual, thanks to the well known complacency and apathy of cabin crew, most of us took our eye off the ball to allow these people into the Union office.
That’s the beauty of a democracy – there is freedom of choice. We don’t have to be bullied by Union thugs.
Yes, there is strength in solidarity and staying united. Divided we may find it harder to negotiate. But when a couple of blokes with their own personal agenda –savoring the sense of power and their fifteen minutes of fame – decide to take a once representative union down a ruinous road of destruction – then its time for some loyal members to look at what’s good for them & their families and make the appropriate, individual decisions.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pucci dreaming,
well.............................Im exhausted.
The present FAAA held a series of meetings Australia wide asking for direction from the membership re the issues of the proposed LHR base, divisional flying etc.
1000 odd people attended, only two of whom voted AGAINST giving the FAAA permission to do all in its power to resist the attack it represents to longhaul cabin crew.
Am I correct in guessing that you and galley gossiper are those two?
L2P "screw the roo"
-------------------------------------------------------------
galley gossiper,
well.............................Im exhausted.
The present FAAA held a series of meetings asking for direction from the membership re the issues of the proposed LHR base, divisional flying etc.
1000 odd people attended, only two of whom voted AGAINST giving the FAAA permission to do all in its power to resist the attack it represents to longhaul cabin crew.
Am I correct in guessing that you and pucci dreamning are those two?
L2P "screw the roo"
well.............................Im exhausted.
The present FAAA held a series of meetings Australia wide asking for direction from the membership re the issues of the proposed LHR base, divisional flying etc.
1000 odd people attended, only two of whom voted AGAINST giving the FAAA permission to do all in its power to resist the attack it represents to longhaul cabin crew.
Am I correct in guessing that you and galley gossiper are those two?
L2P "screw the roo"
-------------------------------------------------------------
galley gossiper,
well.............................Im exhausted.
The present FAAA held a series of meetings asking for direction from the membership re the issues of the proposed LHR base, divisional flying etc.
1000 odd people attended, only two of whom voted AGAINST giving the FAAA permission to do all in its power to resist the attack it represents to longhaul cabin crew.
Am I correct in guessing that you and pucci dreamning are those two?
L2P "screw the roo"
Last edited by Left2primary; 27th Sep 2004 at 11:49.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P
Wasnt at the meeting in Syd, was on a trip to the states..... though I do remember the last meetings had reportedly only 250 odd people there . think you may be confusing the last meetings with the stop work of last EBA . I heard there was a grand total of 13 people in the last FAAA meeting in per, and a handfull more in mel.
As I said, if I thought this was a battle that could be won, I would be there - it cant be . 200 of our combined members have said yes to the base that has been confirmed. plus the 1000 odd strike force being recruited now. plus the 300 odd ground staff given contracts to fly long haul. plus the 400 hundred odd bkk and akl crew. you have muchy more than half our ranks ready as a strike breaking force. it cannot be won. the FAAA should be looking to use the Lhr base to lever other things, such as stopping any other overseas bases eg "We agree to your Lhr base, but will agree only if you do not open any other overseas bases - ever and 'x' amount of that base must always be aussiew crew even if you have to recruit direct from australia". Or levering our flying " We agree to the Lhr base, but all A330 international flying will be done by long haul" . No the FAAA just wants to strike. The FAAA is so off the mark. Most people with any reasonable length of time with QF can see it. The FAAA will be very redfaced, as most people will not support a strike. Their knee-jerk reaction has shown a huge weakness. Sorry - but it is obvious to a lot of crew.
In my opinion the end result of a strike will be the shrinking of Long haul division, as all A330 flying will remain with short haul, including shanghai, narita, singapore, honolulu and other up-coming routes marked for the A330. the hundreds of Long haul crew wanting to go to short haul will be transferred - at a 'b' scale with no band pays, yet more savings for QF. Long haul will just become a shrunken force of 747 flyers going nowhere but Jnb,Lax/Jfk,Fra,Sin (2 day) Bkk (2day). The reason I oppose the FAAAs stance on this issue is we have so much more to lose than just Lhr flights. And judging from the strike force being built by the company and the current shift of flying to short haul, they are happy to do it to us if we arent flexible on this issue.
Wake up - jeez!
Wasnt at the meeting in Syd, was on a trip to the states..... though I do remember the last meetings had reportedly only 250 odd people there . think you may be confusing the last meetings with the stop work of last EBA . I heard there was a grand total of 13 people in the last FAAA meeting in per, and a handfull more in mel.
As I said, if I thought this was a battle that could be won, I would be there - it cant be . 200 of our combined members have said yes to the base that has been confirmed. plus the 1000 odd strike force being recruited now. plus the 300 odd ground staff given contracts to fly long haul. plus the 400 hundred odd bkk and akl crew. you have muchy more than half our ranks ready as a strike breaking force. it cannot be won. the FAAA should be looking to use the Lhr base to lever other things, such as stopping any other overseas bases eg "We agree to your Lhr base, but will agree only if you do not open any other overseas bases - ever and 'x' amount of that base must always be aussiew crew even if you have to recruit direct from australia". Or levering our flying " We agree to the Lhr base, but all A330 international flying will be done by long haul" . No the FAAA just wants to strike. The FAAA is so off the mark. Most people with any reasonable length of time with QF can see it. The FAAA will be very redfaced, as most people will not support a strike. Their knee-jerk reaction has shown a huge weakness. Sorry - but it is obvious to a lot of crew.
In my opinion the end result of a strike will be the shrinking of Long haul division, as all A330 flying will remain with short haul, including shanghai, narita, singapore, honolulu and other up-coming routes marked for the A330. the hundreds of Long haul crew wanting to go to short haul will be transferred - at a 'b' scale with no band pays, yet more savings for QF. Long haul will just become a shrunken force of 747 flyers going nowhere but Jnb,Lax/Jfk,Fra,Sin (2 day) Bkk (2day). The reason I oppose the FAAAs stance on this issue is we have so much more to lose than just Lhr flights. And judging from the strike force being built by the company and the current shift of flying to short haul, they are happy to do it to us if we arent flexible on this issue.
Wake up - jeez!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the lodge
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done galley_gossiper for your very analytical and mature look at this travisty that is now before all Qantas "line" workers. I agree with you that the union is using a very antiquated approach to a situation that should never have been allowed to get this far. The FAAA have sat around for so long saying it will never happen and are then caught unaware when the "business stategest's" come up with newer and better ways to screw you!
Striking is never the answer, especially with the current Mr. Dixons need and desire to bust unions (and maybe with some help from the government). Rather than protecting the product of Qantas and its great reputation "GoD" as I have seen him referred to needs the bottom dollar to protect his grand plan while the sun still shines. In acheiving this he is using the 1990's HR model that employees are only an unnecessary cost and the fewer the better, and the cheaper the better.
I am sure Qantas management have the media releases ready if you guys strike, and public opinion will not be in your favour. I know there have been many great suggestions for alternative action and I really hope you all come up with a plan that will not upset your fellow workers or see a need for strike breakers to enter a situation that should be a discussion between yourselves and the company.
BTW, does anyone know if "GoD" with be wearing a F/A uniform in the cabin now that Branson will be flying to OZ. I vaguely remember tricky Dicky laying down a challenge.
Striking is never the answer, especially with the current Mr. Dixons need and desire to bust unions (and maybe with some help from the government). Rather than protecting the product of Qantas and its great reputation "GoD" as I have seen him referred to needs the bottom dollar to protect his grand plan while the sun still shines. In acheiving this he is using the 1990's HR model that employees are only an unnecessary cost and the fewer the better, and the cheaper the better.
I am sure Qantas management have the media releases ready if you guys strike, and public opinion will not be in your favour. I know there have been many great suggestions for alternative action and I really hope you all come up with a plan that will not upset your fellow workers or see a need for strike breakers to enter a situation that should be a discussion between yourselves and the company.
BTW, does anyone know if "GoD" with be wearing a F/A uniform in the cabin now that Branson will be flying to OZ. I vaguely remember tricky Dicky laying down a challenge.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galley gossiper,
May I state the facts for you once again.
The FAAA held a series of meetings Australia wide in order to gain direction from the membership re the issues we face.
In total 1000 or so crew attended those meetings with only two voting against the FAAA doing all it can to resist the attacks being made on us. Jeeeeeeze!
The fact that you seem unaware that there were several Sydney meetings held on various days doesnt indicate to me at least that you are a longhaul FA. QCC cubicle sitter perhaps?
You assert that the current FAAA leaders are behaving with maniacal and reckless abandon.
I find that a VERY hard pill to swallow given that they were at great pains to point out during the meetings, that no jobs would be put at risk during our "legally protected industrial action".
Oh, thats right. You weren't there! For ANY of them.
You have concerns that the bulk of longhaul crew dont wish to strike???
Well if that is the case, that can, and will, be communicated back to the FAAA via the survey that I recieved from them yesterday.
Yes..........thats right............they are asking for OUR direction once again.
You are, by the way, dead wrong.
L2P
Oh, BTW. Interesting to see that we have a plethora of BRAND NEW anti FAAA/pro QF management posters on this thread.
It indicates to me that our trough feeders have FINALLY lifted their snouts out of their troughs and are blinking at each other rather nervously.
Perhaps you ought to have a MEANINGFULL talk to Michael, Andrew and Steven.
They are VERY reasonable people you know.
May I state the facts for you once again.
The FAAA held a series of meetings Australia wide in order to gain direction from the membership re the issues we face.
In total 1000 or so crew attended those meetings with only two voting against the FAAA doing all it can to resist the attacks being made on us. Jeeeeeeze!
The fact that you seem unaware that there were several Sydney meetings held on various days doesnt indicate to me at least that you are a longhaul FA. QCC cubicle sitter perhaps?
You assert that the current FAAA leaders are behaving with maniacal and reckless abandon.
I find that a VERY hard pill to swallow given that they were at great pains to point out during the meetings, that no jobs would be put at risk during our "legally protected industrial action".
Oh, thats right. You weren't there! For ANY of them.
You have concerns that the bulk of longhaul crew dont wish to strike???
Well if that is the case, that can, and will, be communicated back to the FAAA via the survey that I recieved from them yesterday.
Yes..........thats right............they are asking for OUR direction once again.
You are, by the way, dead wrong.
L2P
Oh, BTW. Interesting to see that we have a plethora of BRAND NEW anti FAAA/pro QF management posters on this thread.
It indicates to me that our trough feeders have FINALLY lifted their snouts out of their troughs and are blinking at each other rather nervously.
Perhaps you ought to have a MEANINGFULL talk to Michael, Andrew and Steven.
They are VERY reasonable people you know.