Qantas London base
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this thread is starting to become a bit personal and therefore aggravating and boring.
You will find Q-Tee is a Customer Service Manager, which means he/she does indeed fly and lets not forget he/she has been flying for many years and others need to respect that. Q-Tee in her position needs to be positive. He/She cannot lead crew and ensure a positive experience is received by the customers if he/she doesnt remain positive about this situation. What sort of respect will Q-Tee and other on-board managers receive if they jump on the "doom and gloom" bandwagon?
If Q-Tee and others want to go to London, that is their choice. Lets not get so personal people
You will find Q-Tee is a Customer Service Manager, which means he/she does indeed fly and lets not forget he/she has been flying for many years and others need to respect that. Q-Tee in her position needs to be positive. He/She cannot lead crew and ensure a positive experience is received by the customers if he/she doesnt remain positive about this situation. What sort of respect will Q-Tee and other on-board managers receive if they jump on the "doom and gloom" bandwagon?
If Q-Tee and others want to go to London, that is their choice. Lets not get so personal people
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Age: 41
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just wondering if anybody knew, if you join Qantas UK from the UK, after the initial two years, are there any chances of being able to transfer to an Australian base??
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at this stage FS. If you accept a position at LHR you would be working for Qantas UK, a subsidary. I would say its highely unlikely the company will introduce any transfer options for employees over there.
I would stick with BA and avoid QF for a while.
I would stick with BA and avoid QF for a while.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you think I am management, then I spose you are right - I am an ONBOARD MANAGER .... that does make me management (although one without any agenda to push !!)
I am also someone who can see the inevitable, and choose to take the best out of it.
Many people see this as a great opportunity, the only people who dont are those who dont do any flights except LHR, and are banking on the allowances etc ... and those who cannot accept the inevitable change ... I feel sorry for those, but they cannot stop this base happening, although I doubt the real (high up)management would admit it ..... think about it, this isnt an overnight decision, its been one in the making for at least two years ... QF could not survive if it made operational decisions like this overnight or on a whim .... they have done their homework, and will have all the aspects covered ---> this is what they do.
I want to go to LHR, those that dont want the base to open are thinking of themselves and what they will be losing .... I am thinking of what those of us going there will be gaining !!!!
Oh and yes I am a union member ---> and no I will not take industrial action to stop the base opening as I see it as
a) useless (it wont stop the base) and
b) I wish to go to LHR .... simple as that.
And if anyone thinks that I could sway QF crew about this issue based on an anonymous forum which most crew probably dont read, well thats a bit odd. If I really wanted to sway crew I could do more 'swaying' on a ten day trip with the crew on my trips ....
Oh and Q-Tee = Cutie (which of course I am ----> for an old Lass
)
I am also someone who can see the inevitable, and choose to take the best out of it.
Many people see this as a great opportunity, the only people who dont are those who dont do any flights except LHR, and are banking on the allowances etc ... and those who cannot accept the inevitable change ... I feel sorry for those, but they cannot stop this base happening, although I doubt the real (high up)management would admit it ..... think about it, this isnt an overnight decision, its been one in the making for at least two years ... QF could not survive if it made operational decisions like this overnight or on a whim .... they have done their homework, and will have all the aspects covered ---> this is what they do.
I want to go to LHR, those that dont want the base to open are thinking of themselves and what they will be losing .... I am thinking of what those of us going there will be gaining !!!!
Oh and yes I am a union member ---> and no I will not take industrial action to stop the base opening as I see it as
a) useless (it wont stop the base) and
b) I wish to go to LHR .... simple as that.
And if anyone thinks that I could sway QF crew about this issue based on an anonymous forum which most crew probably dont read, well thats a bit odd. If I really wanted to sway crew I could do more 'swaying' on a ten day trip with the crew on my trips ....
Oh and Q-Tee = Cutie (which of course I am ----> for an old Lass
)
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q-Tee = Senior and Selfish.
Of course QF have been planning this for at least a couple of years. However, this does not mean we cannot choose to fight it.
If we all sit around and be apathetic (as most Australian's are), the company will screw us big time. We already now LA is the next base on the cards. Meal allowances will be next, whats after that?
As a union we can show the company we mean business.
Q-TEE. If I ever fly with a CSM who tries to push their opinion on me I will tell them were to shove it, weather pro or anti company. On board the aircraft or briefings is not a place to mention personal feelings or beliefs.
Of course QF have been planning this for at least a couple of years. However, this does not mean we cannot choose to fight it.
If we all sit around and be apathetic (as most Australian's are), the company will screw us big time. We already now LA is the next base on the cards. Meal allowances will be next, whats after that?
As a union we can show the company we mean business.
Q-TEE. If I ever fly with a CSM who tries to push their opinion on me I will tell them were to shove it, weather pro or anti company. On board the aircraft or briefings is not a place to mention personal feelings or beliefs.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing the FAAA is forgetting, is probably up to 400 of it's MEMBERS wish to go to LHR, the FAAA is supposed to represent all members
If they strike it will go on their record and they will not be given a job in LHR as it is merit based.
I think they are a little shortsighted to support this offer of a LHR base at this stage.
It is just a QF tactic to get support for increased o/s base numbers which they certainly don't want us filling longterm, as is indicated by the 3 year maximum.
I'm sure a lot of the people who want to go to LHR also were opposed to increasing the amount of Thai and Kiwi based crew.
So its different now because its sounds like a nice thing for them in the short term.
It is not about the FAAA being opposed to a LHR base, it is about increasing the cap on O/S based crew.
In previous EBAs this was safeguarded, but a majority of crew who voted in the last EBA decided that the cap should expire Dec 17 2004 as this was the change to the clause made by QF definitely with something like this in mind.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bronx of Heathrow
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18'000 £?
Mmmhhh... 
Qantas UK are not likely to find experienced crew for 18K. London Heathrow is an expensive base! As a junior with a charter airline, I used to take home 15-16k per year, living around Gatwick, which is a cheaper area than LHR. I wouldn't spit on an 18K contract if I had nothing else to go for but I wouldn't leave my job for that! It sounds more like a package for 1st timers... Sorry Qantas!
FJ (not such a cheap labourer after all!)
Qantas UK are not likely to find experienced crew for 18K. London Heathrow is an expensive base! As a junior with a charter airline, I used to take home 15-16k per year, living around Gatwick, which is a cheaper area than LHR. I wouldn't spit on an 18K contract if I had nothing else to go for but I wouldn't leave my job for that! It sounds more like a package for 1st timers... Sorry Qantas!FJ (not such a cheap labourer after all!)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ???
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Geoff - you big TOOL!
Trying to open foreign bases with foreign crew and then complaining about foreign competitors in the following article. Check out this quote!
"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."
Perhaps the Government should take care and assess what QF is doing taking jobs from AUSSIES!
More special interest pleading from Qantas
By Pemberton Strong
20 July 2004
Qantas CEO, Geoff Dixon has taken time out from number crunching the 2003-2004 annual figures to read and sign a letter written by someone inside the airline that replied to the Australian Financial Review's July 13 editorial that called "Airlines must fight it out" and adjust to changing business environment.
And predictably it was a recitation of how unfair the world is, how many unfair competitors there are with big government owners, and all these people ganging up on poor little Qantas.
More special interesting moaning from the Qantas CEO, albeit with some good points. But its a bit like man bites dog analogy for news judgement in the media.
The fact is there have always been big and small government airlines with significant government support. Even those bastions of free enterprise, the big US carriers, are sucking on the government teats, as Geoff rightly points out.
What has changed is that Qantas is no longer on the teat in Australia, but sometimes gives the impression that it needs special protection to be protected.
Judge by these comments from Geoff's letter in today's AFR "Qantas has been quite explicit in asking Australian governments to adopt a balanced approach to liberalisation, with appropriate emphasis on overcoming various constraints that we face, and to be aware we are not competing on a level playing field"
"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."
Well, Geoff, what's changed? Qantas had been pushing this line for decades, both as a government-owned carrier and now privately owned.
The playing field in aviation has always been unbalanced from the time it started because of government involvement, even in Australia when Sir Reginald Ansett and then Sir Peter Abeles, at times, appeared to run domestic aviation policy.
But when Geoff says in the letter "Aviation policy cannot be driven by consumer interest alone" you see the real thrust of his point.
Consumers can get nicked, Qantas the company, shareholders and managers with their bonus schemes and fat option deals (and a complacent board) are all committed to achieving a 'flat playing field' and not to the consumer interest.
And when someone like James Packer is appointed to the board, its another sign that the airline's board is more interested in self perpetuation and the same old tune. That they appoint as a director a man whose family fortune depends on Government deals and licences, says it all.Free enterprise as a notion seems to be very selective on the Qantas board. But then this was a board that carried Bruvva John Ducker for years, and Trevor Kennedy..
And yet, Qantas has been slow to respond to consumers in this country: witness the success so far of Virgin Blue.
Some former competitors, mentioned in Geoff's letter, and current ones, would argue that Qantas is not averse to throwing its weight around in the market place to protect its interests. Whether that protects the interest of consumers at times is debateable.
But the most galling thing about this letter full of special interest pleading, is that in a month's time Qantas is going to report a boomer of a profit, possibly its best ever, with continuing strength in international routes a big factor (especially to Europe and the US, where there is little competition).
The real story for Qantas is an impressive one, but one Geoff and the Board continually downplay. That since being sold off a decade ago, Qantas has thrived in domestically and especially in the more competitive international business.
For all the talk of big nasty foreign airlines with government support, Qantas has skilfully played the percentages domestically and internationally, cut costs, spent billions efficiently re-equipping and then running the business for profit, not for the benefit of employees and public servants.
Its most profitable international routes are protected by bi-laterals and cosy inter government deals that 'tilt' Geoff's playing field even more the way of him and Qantas. Witness the Joint Services Agreement on the Australia London Kangaroo route with British Airways.
That excludes the most potent carrier in the region, Singapore Airlines. But Geoff would argue Singapore has government support, but that didn't stop Singapore from losing $1 billion in New Zealand. And it hasn't stopped Geoff from venturing into Singapore's backyard to look at setting up a low cost airline based in Singapore.
There's a big whiff of hypocrisy about all of this!
The past decade has shown that Qantas doesn't need mollycoddling and being serviced by favourable decisions from Canberra, led by the "Minister for Qantas", Transport Minister john Anderson.
It is a growing, hugely profitable business and a success story. But its funny you hardly hear that story from Coward Street in Mascot near Sydney airport, or the corporate offices in tow
==========================================
Trying to open foreign bases with foreign crew and then complaining about foreign competitors in the following article. Check out this quote!
"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."
Perhaps the Government should take care and assess what QF is doing taking jobs from AUSSIES!
More special interest pleading from Qantas
By Pemberton Strong
20 July 2004
Qantas CEO, Geoff Dixon has taken time out from number crunching the 2003-2004 annual figures to read and sign a letter written by someone inside the airline that replied to the Australian Financial Review's July 13 editorial that called "Airlines must fight it out" and adjust to changing business environment.
And predictably it was a recitation of how unfair the world is, how many unfair competitors there are with big government owners, and all these people ganging up on poor little Qantas.
More special interesting moaning from the Qantas CEO, albeit with some good points. But its a bit like man bites dog analogy for news judgement in the media.
The fact is there have always been big and small government airlines with significant government support. Even those bastions of free enterprise, the big US carriers, are sucking on the government teats, as Geoff rightly points out.
What has changed is that Qantas is no longer on the teat in Australia, but sometimes gives the impression that it needs special protection to be protected.
Judge by these comments from Geoff's letter in today's AFR "Qantas has been quite explicit in asking Australian governments to adopt a balanced approach to liberalisation, with appropriate emphasis on overcoming various constraints that we face, and to be aware we are not competing on a level playing field"
"We have also asked that the government take care as it considers requests for even greater access to the Australian market by foreign competitors."
Well, Geoff, what's changed? Qantas had been pushing this line for decades, both as a government-owned carrier and now privately owned.
The playing field in aviation has always been unbalanced from the time it started because of government involvement, even in Australia when Sir Reginald Ansett and then Sir Peter Abeles, at times, appeared to run domestic aviation policy.
But when Geoff says in the letter "Aviation policy cannot be driven by consumer interest alone" you see the real thrust of his point.
Consumers can get nicked, Qantas the company, shareholders and managers with their bonus schemes and fat option deals (and a complacent board) are all committed to achieving a 'flat playing field' and not to the consumer interest.
And when someone like James Packer is appointed to the board, its another sign that the airline's board is more interested in self perpetuation and the same old tune. That they appoint as a director a man whose family fortune depends on Government deals and licences, says it all.Free enterprise as a notion seems to be very selective on the Qantas board. But then this was a board that carried Bruvva John Ducker for years, and Trevor Kennedy..
And yet, Qantas has been slow to respond to consumers in this country: witness the success so far of Virgin Blue.
Some former competitors, mentioned in Geoff's letter, and current ones, would argue that Qantas is not averse to throwing its weight around in the market place to protect its interests. Whether that protects the interest of consumers at times is debateable.
But the most galling thing about this letter full of special interest pleading, is that in a month's time Qantas is going to report a boomer of a profit, possibly its best ever, with continuing strength in international routes a big factor (especially to Europe and the US, where there is little competition).
The real story for Qantas is an impressive one, but one Geoff and the Board continually downplay. That since being sold off a decade ago, Qantas has thrived in domestically and especially in the more competitive international business.
For all the talk of big nasty foreign airlines with government support, Qantas has skilfully played the percentages domestically and internationally, cut costs, spent billions efficiently re-equipping and then running the business for profit, not for the benefit of employees and public servants.
Its most profitable international routes are protected by bi-laterals and cosy inter government deals that 'tilt' Geoff's playing field even more the way of him and Qantas. Witness the Joint Services Agreement on the Australia London Kangaroo route with British Airways.
That excludes the most potent carrier in the region, Singapore Airlines. But Geoff would argue Singapore has government support, but that didn't stop Singapore from losing $1 billion in New Zealand. And it hasn't stopped Geoff from venturing into Singapore's backyard to look at setting up a low cost airline based in Singapore.
There's a big whiff of hypocrisy about all of this!
The past decade has shown that Qantas doesn't need mollycoddling and being serviced by favourable decisions from Canberra, led by the "Minister for Qantas", Transport Minister john Anderson.
It is a growing, hugely profitable business and a success story. But its funny you hardly hear that story from Coward Street in Mascot near Sydney airport, or the corporate offices in tow
==========================================
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately for all QF crew ... this is a 'the chicken or the egg' argument ..... biscuit chucker ... you have said that those going to LHR dont give a toss about those staying in Australia? Well do those staying in Australia give a toss about those going to LHR ??? We could argue it back and forth for days .....
The fact is, there ARE (more than ) 400 crew wanting to go to LHR ....those crew have their own 'wants and needs' in mind when considering industrial action over the LHR base .... will they walk out to stop a LHR base ? nope
Are those staying behind considering looking after the LHR based people ??? Nope
The company has us all in a strangle, as there are enough crew wanting to go to LHR to cover a few days industrial action from those not wanting to go there ---> thats a fact.
There is no equal answer to this problem .... and it is a problem that was designed by management .... to have the exact effect that it is doing now .... but rest asssured, there are a heap of people who see this as an opportunity rather than a scurge ..... and thats the current problem for the FAAA...
I have no answers, except that the LHR base suits me, as with (seemingly) over 400 crew .... so the FAAA should take that into account before taking the ' those left in SYD' approach, cos it cant work --> a lot of the FAAA members wish to go ....
As for the personal attacks on me by telling my side on this - well I could care less ..... I am going and nothing will change my mind on that
and there are a lot of others like me who wont give up this opportunity ..... opportunities like this for us who are older than the UK Work Visa requirements are few and far between....
And for the "SELFISH AND SENIOR' cries about me , well that has no foundation, as I will be giving up the seniority system to go there .... It will be allocated rosters, no seniority involved And I could care less about that too ....
Chicken and egg argument again .... I am a ' Selfish Senior' well those calling me that must be 'Jealous Juniors'
It's an arguement that will never end .....................
And to be frank, I dont really give a toss
The fact is, there ARE (more than ) 400 crew wanting to go to LHR ....those crew have their own 'wants and needs' in mind when considering industrial action over the LHR base .... will they walk out to stop a LHR base ? nope
Are those staying behind considering looking after the LHR based people ??? Nope
The company has us all in a strangle, as there are enough crew wanting to go to LHR to cover a few days industrial action from those not wanting to go there ---> thats a fact.
There is no equal answer to this problem .... and it is a problem that was designed by management .... to have the exact effect that it is doing now .... but rest asssured, there are a heap of people who see this as an opportunity rather than a scurge ..... and thats the current problem for the FAAA...
I have no answers, except that the LHR base suits me, as with (seemingly) over 400 crew .... so the FAAA should take that into account before taking the ' those left in SYD' approach, cos it cant work --> a lot of the FAAA members wish to go ....
As for the personal attacks on me by telling my side on this - well I could care less ..... I am going and nothing will change my mind on that
and there are a lot of others like me who wont give up this opportunity ..... opportunities like this for us who are older than the UK Work Visa requirements are few and far between....And for the "SELFISH AND SENIOR' cries about me , well that has no foundation, as I will be giving up the seniority system to go there .... It will be allocated rosters, no seniority involved
And I could care less about that too ....Chicken and egg argument again .... I am a ' Selfish Senior' well those calling me that must be 'Jealous Juniors'
It's an arguement that will never end .....................
And to be frank, I dont really give a toss
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE BLAME GAME
Q TEE is perhaps the most pompous,self important individual in this entire forum.I would be interested in having a conversation with her after she has been on the LHR base for a year.
TWIGGS is correct.....the base has been brought about by flight attendants themselves(albeit originally through the FAAA)
1.In EBA 5 the FAAA to agreed to the establishment of offshore bases with a cap but no date limitation.
2.EBA 6,amongst other things,accepted the expiration of the cap.The EBA was voted on and accepted by a majority.
The industrial relations initiative was lost by many individuals voting naively in the affirmative(the yes vote)for EBA 6.This forum would not exist had the vote been NO.Unfortunately circumstances also worked against a different outcome with the advent of SARS and the Iraq war.During periods of uncertainty we make more conservative decisions.In this instance we will live the ramifications for years.
We the(the rank and file) members of the FAAA made this decision and we will now live with consequences.
There is no one to blame but ourselves!
TWIGGS is correct.....the base has been brought about by flight attendants themselves(albeit originally through the FAAA)
1.In EBA 5 the FAAA to agreed to the establishment of offshore bases with a cap but no date limitation.
2.EBA 6,amongst other things,accepted the expiration of the cap.The EBA was voted on and accepted by a majority.
The industrial relations initiative was lost by many individuals voting naively in the affirmative(the yes vote)for EBA 6.This forum would not exist had the vote been NO.Unfortunately circumstances also worked against a different outcome with the advent of SARS and the Iraq war.During periods of uncertainty we make more conservative decisions.In this instance we will live the ramifications for years.
We the(the rank and file) members of the FAAA made this decision and we will now live with consequences.
There is no one to blame but ourselves!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree.....
I think Q-Tee is one of the most level headed, open minded, smartest and intelligent individual on this forum.
I have no idea who you are Q-Tee, but personally I think you rock!
That's all.
Theeya's
I think Q-Tee is one of the most level headed, open minded, smartest and intelligent individual on this forum.
I have no idea who you are Q-Tee, but personally I think you rock!
That's all.
Theeya's
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASE TYPES
Overheard some cabin crew discussing the LHR base and how they would handle the short standown time.
Solution:GO SICK !
I have a feeling that there will be alot of STANDBIES in LHR.These people obviously have little concern for those who will have to replace them.
Solution:GO SICK !
I have a feeling that there will be alot of STANDBIES in LHR.These people obviously have little concern for those who will have to replace them.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raverflaver,
you would be best commenting on things you understand.
Have you been to one of the FAAA meetings?
The London base represents the biggest attack on the conditions of longhaul crew that I have seen in nearly 20 years.
It also spells the end of fulltime QF longhaul positions for Australians for many years.
qtee may be full of pompous self importance and self interest but even she knows the implications.
Her problem is that she is so full of self interest that she doesnt care.
L2P
you would be best commenting on things you understand.
Have you been to one of the FAAA meetings?
The London base represents the biggest attack on the conditions of longhaul crew that I have seen in nearly 20 years.
It also spells the end of fulltime QF longhaul positions for Australians for many years.
qtee may be full of pompous self importance and self interest but even she knows the implications.
Her problem is that she is so full of self interest that she doesnt care.
L2P
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L2P,
If you read my post I wasn't commenting on the issue at all. My comment was a personal comment about Q-TEE.
You're right it is an issue I don't know a lot about and I have not been to an FAAA meeting as I am not a flight attendant.
And so are you telling me that IF I did want to make a comment on this thread that I am not allowed to because I don't know anything about it........this is a chat forum that encourages open discussion right????
My apologies for assuming otherwise, I will just sit back and let know-it-alls like yourself make future comments.
Have a nice night,
Raver
If you read my post I wasn't commenting on the issue at all. My comment was a personal comment about Q-TEE.
You're right it is an issue I don't know a lot about and I have not been to an FAAA meeting as I am not a flight attendant.
And so are you telling me that IF I did want to make a comment on this thread that I am not allowed to because I don't know anything about it........this is a chat forum that encourages open discussion right????
My apologies for assuming otherwise, I will just sit back and let know-it-alls like yourself make future comments.
Have a nice night,
Raver
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Perth australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All
Come on people get a grip...can I ask where in your employment contract that you signed before joining QF does it state:
A) You will be flying to LHR for the rest of your contract with QF
B) You will be paid over 12K in allowances per year
If you can please point it out to me, cause I cant see it.
What QF is trying to do is get better usage out of its crew. They are also setting up a base in BNE, can't you people see what they are trying to do:
POINT TO POINT FLYING
As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?
SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL
Does QF have bases there??? yes they do and it home for most of you. So why set up a base in LA where they are going to be overnighting in Australia anyway (hotel, allowances, transport)
All it sounds to me that SYD based L/H crew have had it to good for to long, and now they are getting flying like the other bases (MEL & PER) and now "it quick do something about it, as it OUR flights to LHR thats been taken away", but who cares about the sh*t patterns that MEL and PER crew has been doing for 3 yrs
I understand the LHR base is not for everybody, SO DONT TAKE IT if it doesnt fit with your plans, but dont put anybody down that wants to take it..
Come on people get a grip...can I ask where in your employment contract that you signed before joining QF does it state:
A) You will be flying to LHR for the rest of your contract with QF
B) You will be paid over 12K in allowances per year
If you can please point it out to me, cause I cant see it.
What QF is trying to do is get better usage out of its crew. They are also setting up a base in BNE, can't you people see what they are trying to do:
POINT TO POINT FLYING
As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?
SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL
Does QF have bases there??? yes they do and it home for most of you. So why set up a base in LA where they are going to be overnighting in Australia anyway (hotel, allowances, transport)
All it sounds to me that SYD based L/H crew have had it to good for to long, and now they are getting flying like the other bases (MEL & PER) and now "it quick do something about it, as it OUR flights to LHR thats been taken away", but who cares about the sh*t patterns that MEL and PER crew has been doing for 3 yrs
I understand the LHR base is not for everybody, SO DONT TAKE IT if it doesnt fit with your plans, but dont put anybody down that wants to take it..
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bolto_79
you mentioned
[POINT TO POINT FLYING
As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?
SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL]
firstly, let me state - i understand QF have strenuously denied that a base in LAX is under consideration - but there again, at the last crew forums, so was a BNE longhaul base.....??
So, what would QF have to gain from an LA base?
i) Crew on contracts, not directly employed by QF, so good for the bottom line.
ii) On lower rates of pay, not subjected to the same rest requirements after a long range sector.
iii) Able to do JFK as a shuttle.
iv) Reduced accomodation requirements in LA
v) Increased duty hours per bid period
vi) Flexibility to introduce ORD / DFW shuttles or other services to utilise aircraft sitting on the ground for 12 - 15 hours
Along with LAX, you could argue, why does QF have a need for a crew base in AKl.
There is no cultural requirement (though i'm sure many would argue otherwise)
The AKL based crew don't purely operate point to point sectors, they also operate patterns ex SYD.
As an F/A, i'm proud to work for QF.
The vast majority of people I work with - likewise.
We have a vested interested in ensuring that this company is competitve, viable and secure because all of our futures depend on it.
My biggest concern is that there are a lot of managers out there now, running around trying to justify why they are in their jobs.
One of the easiest targets out there is the crew.
Yes, the world and industry have changed, there are a lot of efficiencies to be gained, however there are ways to do this without the knee jerk reation of opening crew bases left, right and centre.
Maybe it's time for the company, the crew and the FAAA to sit down and work out the best way to approach this because at the moment we have an irresistable force - and an immovable object!!!
you mentioned
[POINT TO POINT FLYING
As for a LA base, the FAAA is telling you all bullsh*t, why would QF set up a base in LA where they need to pay FA's US dollars and all they would be doing flights from LA to where?
SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL]
firstly, let me state - i understand QF have strenuously denied that a base in LAX is under consideration - but there again, at the last crew forums, so was a BNE longhaul base.....??
So, what would QF have to gain from an LA base?
i) Crew on contracts, not directly employed by QF, so good for the bottom line.
ii) On lower rates of pay, not subjected to the same rest requirements after a long range sector.
iii) Able to do JFK as a shuttle.
iv) Reduced accomodation requirements in LA
v) Increased duty hours per bid period
vi) Flexibility to introduce ORD / DFW shuttles or other services to utilise aircraft sitting on the ground for 12 - 15 hours
Along with LAX, you could argue, why does QF have a need for a crew base in AKl.
There is no cultural requirement (though i'm sure many would argue otherwise)
The AKL based crew don't purely operate point to point sectors, they also operate patterns ex SYD.
As an F/A, i'm proud to work for QF.
The vast majority of people I work with - likewise.
We have a vested interested in ensuring that this company is competitve, viable and secure because all of our futures depend on it.
My biggest concern is that there are a lot of managers out there now, running around trying to justify why they are in their jobs.
One of the easiest targets out there is the crew.
Yes, the world and industry have changed, there are a lot of efficiencies to be gained, however there are ways to do this without the knee jerk reation of opening crew bases left, right and centre.
Maybe it's time for the company, the crew and the FAAA to sit down and work out the best way to approach this because at the moment we have an irresistable force - and an immovable object!!!
Last edited by onQ; 22nd Jul 2004 at 16:19.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ON Q, ON THE MONEY
ON Q is on the money. The efficiencies gained by QF establishing a base in LAX would be similar if not greater than those achieved in LHR.
Cheaper Labour(Lower wages,No long range component)
Rostering efficiencies(no 50% standown)
Less room night requirements
Lower allowances(from shorter stays in Sydney,MEL and BNE)
This seems to be the crux of the Great Base Debate.The LHR base is the thin edge of the wedge.Once it is established surely more will follow.
Those that voted yes in the last EBA should have paid attention to those advocating a no vote.A NO VOTE would have meant the cap(370) remained and there would be NO LHR base and NO potential LAX Base.
The damage has been done and you must now suffer the consequences of naive indifference!
Cheaper Labour(Lower wages,No long range component)
Rostering efficiencies(no 50% standown)
Less room night requirements
Lower allowances(from shorter stays in Sydney,MEL and BNE)
This seems to be the crux of the Great Base Debate.The LHR base is the thin edge of the wedge.Once it is established surely more will follow.
Those that voted yes in the last EBA should have paid attention to those advocating a no vote.A NO VOTE would have meant the cap(370) remained and there would be NO LHR base and NO potential LAX Base.
The damage has been done and you must now suffer the consequences of naive indifference!
Last edited by captainrats; 23rd Jul 2004 at 03:20.
With all of the mud flying around this thread it is actually quite hard to glean some facts on the case at hand, so if I have missed the ball entirely on this one, consider this an apology in advance.
Did Qantas crews actually vote in their last EBA to remove the cap on foreign bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
If the answer to that is yes, then as I pick myself back up off the floor, all this thread highlights is just how out of touch some of you actually are. You and your union agreed to this. End of story, rubber stamp and all.
In not saying no to lifting the cap, I'm sure you didn't expect what is unfolding now to actually happen, but you should have! You all know how rutheless your management is and it would only have been a matter of time before they jumped on this one to squeeze the bottom line even further.
Doesn't say much for your reps or your own forward thinking. Sorry guys, you dropped the ball on this one, big time.
Did Qantas crews actually vote in their last EBA to remove the cap on foreign bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
If the answer to that is yes, then as I pick myself back up off the floor, all this thread highlights is just how out of touch some of you actually are. You and your union agreed to this. End of story, rubber stamp and all.
In not saying no to lifting the cap, I'm sure you didn't expect what is unfolding now to actually happen, but you should have! You all know how rutheless your management is and it would only have been a matter of time before they jumped on this one to squeeze the bottom line even further.
Doesn't say much for your reps or your own forward thinking. Sorry guys, you dropped the ball on this one, big time.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubber Stamp
34R
Those who voted yes are most likely the individuals complaining loudest now.
They did not support their union executive when it came to elections.The no voters vented their wrath and voted out the entire union executive.
We did drop the ball and the damage done is iretrievable.
Those who voted yes are most likely the individuals complaining loudest now.
They did not support their union executive when it came to elections.The no voters vented their wrath and voted out the entire union executive.
We did drop the ball and the damage done is iretrievable.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food For Thought
You are LHR based and have just arrived into Sin.After 24 hrs you are called on to operate the QF5 to FRA......the aircraft broke down and the crew are now out of hours.After a 24 hour slip in FRA you operate back to SIN.After a 24 hour slip you are called upon to supplement a shortage of crew in PER.......operating PER/SIN return.A further 24 hrs and you are on your way back to LHR.You have lost your next trip and are now on S/BY....roster stability is shot to pieces.
The FAAA is not able to support you since you are working for an off shore subsidiary.
You have no hours limitations and no slip formula.Since your original slip was reduced you were overpaid in allowance and this needs to be returned.
You do not have a duty hours limitation.Is your roster 8 weeks or 4 weeks in duration?Can you be placed on S/BY in a foreign port?What is your minimum rest entitlement?
Can you be used to cross crew with Sydney based crew?
How often will you be on S/BY?
How many DHCs will you receive for S/Bys(if any)
All questions that need to be asked before making a commitment
The FAAA is not able to support you since you are working for an off shore subsidiary.
You have no hours limitations and no slip formula.Since your original slip was reduced you were overpaid in allowance and this needs to be returned.
You do not have a duty hours limitation.Is your roster 8 weeks or 4 weeks in duration?Can you be placed on S/BY in a foreign port?What is your minimum rest entitlement?
Can you be used to cross crew with Sydney based crew?
How often will you be on S/BY?
How many DHCs will you receive for S/Bys(if any)
All questions that need to be asked before making a commitment