FAAA (merged)

[peanut pusher]

Real Deal EBA for QF crew (please read)

Just one fact for all to consider before they bash the FAAA over the head again.
Both sides spent 6 hours with an industrial judge to come to the agreement. The commisioner clearly gave the FAAA direction that this was what the industrial relations commision would rule if it got to the war all were expecting.
FAAA got about 70% of what they wanted and actual won the day.

[peanut pusher]

Keep it real Part 2

Just one fact for all to consider before they bash the FAAA over the head again.
Both sides spent 6 hours with an industrial judge to come to the agreement. The commisioner clearly gave the FAAA direction that this was what the industrial relations commision would rule if it got to the war all were expecting.
FAAA got about 70% of what they wanted and actual won the day.

[qfcsm]

Mr Backseat 2 and others,

Can you please explain to one and all what happened - you clearly seam to think you know it all!

The FAAA go to the commission on a fight over the LHR base and come out with an endorsed EBA package - WHAT HAPPENED!!!!

That's all we want to know.......It appears from the outside that some kind of shonky deal was pulled while the doors were closed at the commission.

Why didn't the FAAA came back and say "hey we're not sure everyone is on side with industrial action, so let's stich up a deal". Simple stuff and it's called COMMUNICATION!

And to say it's a good deal - give me a break. It smells and smells bad.

Do you recall what caused the division in the FAAA International branch a little while ago? Huh, do you?
It was that a couple of the officials believed the industrial action was better than negotiating. I'm not suggesting industrial action is the answer but it seemed to be having the right effect.

Also do you remember a certain individual saying he would never run for FAAA office again? Huh, do you?
Well he is the very same person who wrote to crew informing them of this insignificant outcome the other day.

Get real people. Can you not see what is happening? Your conditions are slowly being eroded away from all fronts and your FAAA representatives are pushing the gas pedal.

Wake up, smell the stench, and go say something to these sellout sisters...!

[mach2male]

Three Blind Mice

Well that makes THREE of you who aren`t happy.Go to LHR a lot do we?Well you will still be able to go to THE CHURCH on Sunday.The LHR base was agreed to in EBA6(by voting to remove the cap)If you are annoyed take it out on the previous executive.Mitjatov et al have saved us from having a LAX base and wages have a 3% compounded sweetener.LHR trips have always been relatively undesirable by most crew...so whats the big deal?

[Mr Seatback 2]

qfcsm

Quit being emotional. It dilutes the argument you're trying to make.

I've never said I knew it all, or that I was an expert on this matter here or on any other thread. Conversely, with the exception of your rhetoric, you don't know a great deal either. Nor do you consider the bigger picture.

Mach2male said it perfectly...much of what has recently occurred has resulted in LOOPHOLES that were ripe for the exploiting from the last EBA 6. Simple.

As I also recall, the current FAAA executive have stated more than a few times that much of their problem in fighting QF was that such loopholes (ie. increase in overseas cap) existed, created by previous FAAA officials - and QF knew that!

It was going to happen anyway - industrial action or not.

[qfcsm]

Whatever.....!

Let me say I am LUCKY to get the occasional LHR. Most of my trips are Jobergs! I have only heard of the church in LHR. Never been there.

The secretary of the FAAA has an economics degree. I challenge him to say that Australian based crew will not be financially worse off for this deal. If he does the calculations honestly and communicates them to crew and they are vastly different to these than I will back off.

Until then let me give you some facts....

The 3% will give you at best an additional $3000 per annum (if you earn a base pay of $100,000 and who does). That's $9,000 over 3 years and let's be generous and say $12,000 with compounding. Remember that is based on a $100,000 base!

The conservative estimates on gross reduction per average crew member is around $12,000 per annum (Loss of: long range, ODTA, SDTA, allowances, etc). Over 3 years that's $36,000.
BTW crew in the top 10% of seniority within category will not be affected by this as they can still get their long range etc with LAX.

So how does a $12,000 increase less a $36,000 loss add up to a good deal! Maths say that equals a $24,000 loss over 3 years.

I am trying to stay un-emotive but for some reason some individuals cannot see the big picture.

And consider this: LHR is not the end. It will be VERY soon that long haul crew are a thing of the past.

This deal also delivers a potential 65% of 767 and A330 international flying to short haul - WHY? Because they are cheaper...
[New 767/A330 divisional flying deal: 35% long haul, 25% short haul, 40% to QF]

Watch out long haul, you are being made extinct!!

Further...

I can only guess the LOOPHOLES referred to as being the dropping of clauses from previous EBAs in relation to "Roster Review\' and \'Pay Equalisation\'.

Let me quote directly from the EBA VI:

CLAUSE 18 REVIEW OF ROSTER SYSTEM
18.1 During the term of this EBA Qantas and the FAAA will undertake a fundamental review of how flying is allocated to crew. The objectives of the review will include but not be limited to:
· A fairer share of flying between crew,
· Improved roster sociability and stability,
· A reduction in costs,
· A reduction in demand days,
· An overall improvement in roster efficiency, and
· Implementation of a trip swap system.
18.2 The timetable for this review will be as follows:
· Qantas will table a draft proposal by 1 October 2003,
· A joint Qantas FAAA working party will then be convened to
complete its deliberations by 1 February 2004, including
negotiations on changes to the certified agreement.

CLAUSE 22 RESERVE LINE ROTATION AND PAY EQUALISATION
During the term of this EBA the parties will review options to reduce the frequency of reserve line rotation, with the objective of returning reserve line rotation to or below one bid period in ten.
The timetable for this review will be as follows:
· the parties will complete the review by 1 September 2003
· Agreed changes will be implemented by 1 November 2003.


LET ME MAKE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THE FIRST PRESCRIPTION IN BOTH THESE CLAUSES SAYS:
"DURING THE TERM OF THIS EBA..."
That means that at the conclusion of the prescribed term (17 December 2004) these clauses are DEAD, GONE, FINISHED!

Phew, sorry I am getting emotive again... So the FAAA achieved NOTHING in having them removed but these things are highlighted in their newsletter to crew as being milestone gains.

Simply said, crew please look at what is being offered and don\'t just take it as being "the best deal". It is not!

[Pegasus747]

EBA 7 or bust

Cut the crap QfCSM

you are obviously one of the idoiots that crew voted off the previous union.

The Cap of 370 expires on 17 dec 2004. That means after that qantas can have unlimited crew overseas and unlimited bases. This deal appears to give a cap that includes london bangkok and auckland. we havent gone from 370 to 870 we have gone from unlimited to a cap.

As far as the income losses you think you will suffer think about what your income would be if they set up a base in LA and JNB and gave the remaining work to short haul we would just shrink we would dissappear.

Unless there is some hidden trap like a product clause then this will get my vote and the union my thanks. These guys started only this year and we have never had better communication in the 20 yrs i have been flying.

And the 3 year deal will get us over the proposed legislation and see out dixon and the black widow. If crew vote this deal down then if i were dixon i would be delighted. I would open bases everywhere and the public would say go ahead flight attendants are idiots after what they have been offered in this deal.

Get into the real world. Ask someone else in Qantas what they are getting

[mach2male]

Amen To That Brother

Pegasus 747 has nailed it.As far QFCSM is concerned his/her emotion is clouding the issues.My renumeration is satisfactory.We have all become too destination focused.I don`t care where I go and on what aircraft .I am very happy with the outcome.QFCSM if your lifestyle is unsatisfactory drop back and stop complaining

[qfcsm]

That's how you feel and good luck to you.
No doubt the deal will get up as it has done previously.

Hope you remember your actions in the next couple of years when you look at your group certificate and wonder why your gross is so low.

As I said good luck.... you'll need it!

[galley_gossiper]

Well, I cant say I agree with everything in the proposed EBA .... but will be voting for it.
London was always going ahead, when the FAAA were on their "lets strike to stop london" phase, everyone knew it could not be won.
Yes there will be some losses of $$$$ for those who do LHR regularly.
.But you only strike when you have nothing to lose --- we had everything to lose. Being locked out, more overseas bases, shorthaul taking all A330/767 flying --- the company could have had their dream come true Get rid of the Long Haul Division!!!!.
Not a great outcome, but we dont lose conditions, only a destination, and unfortunately the benefits that go with that destination. I dont agree however with the 'language f/a's 'clause, that will stop a lot of us (non mand/cantonese speakers) bidding for future mainland china destinations.
I personally think that if we went on strike to stop the inevitable, Qf would have gotten rid of us.

[str]

galley gossiper -

Do you know the meaning of PROTECTED industrial action?

I suggest you read the AIRC defintion before spouting off that QF could get rid of long haul:

AIRC

The web site of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) contains some helpful questions and answers.

The OEA notes that under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, employees have only a limited right to take industrial action.

Can employees ever lawfully take industrial action?

Yes, but only when it fits all of these rules:

• it happens during a properly notified bargaining period (which starts seven days after one party notifies the other and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that it intends to seek to reach a certified agreement);
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement before the action is taken; and
• the employer gets 3 (three) working days’ written notice of the proposed industrial action.

This is called "protected" industrial action.

If an employer is bargaining with employees and unable to reach agreement, the employer can apply to the AIRC to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. If the employer is successful, that puts an end to the protected status of the industrial action. In making its decision the AIRC will consider whether the employer has been trying to seek agreement in good faith.

What action can an employer take during a bargaining period

An employer can lock out its workers and stop them from working if:

• the lockout occurs during a properly notified bargaining period;
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement;and
• the employer gives written notice to each party with whom it is negotiating – so if there is more than one union involved the employer must give the notice to each union – that it will be locking the gate/telling them to go home.

The employer must give 3 clear working days notice unless the lock out is in response to the union/s industrial action.

Can an employer sack employees who take industrial action?

It is against the law for employers to dismiss an employee if they are taking protected industrial action.

An employer must still follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action. There is no short cut just because they may have broken the law.

Does an employer have to pay its employees when they take industrial action?

It is against the law to :

• pay any employee who has taken industrial action;
• do a deal whereby they get paid for work they haven’t done;
• agree to pay them as part of settling a dispute; and
• for an employee to accept payment for industrial action

What is industrial action?

It’s when employees do something which restricts, limits or delays their work, such as imposing go-slows or work to rule bans –not only when they walk off the job.



NO vote from me

[bunkmaster]

support of str NO TO EBA VII

agree with str. if protected legal action is taken they cant sack the entire longhaul crew. even if they had a 1000 scabs on standby they couldn't replace 3900 crew that easily. bookings are down by around 30% because of all the negative publicity. and having spoken myself to a few travel agents who have a reasonable picture about the situation there feedback was book on anyone but QF.not just because of the industrial side but also their commissions have been cut and they dont agree they way dixon runs the business. they all call them pretty arrogant these days.
as for loosing a destination and a little money there is a lot more to it. no redundencie clause is in this EBa, so another major incident and who do you guys think they want to get rid of first. not difficult to answer. also there will be no longer promotional opportunities for aussie based crew. remember LG made it already clear she not only wants to promote in london but also in auckland. so either some of the AKL-LAx or a number of shark patrols are going soon as well. cant see any promotion on the horizon for aussie based crew.
the divisional flying agreement means not much. Qf management can still give shorthaul all the regional flying and longhaul domestic extensions. to have this done through the IC is actually in my opinion a step backward as with all the IR changes on the way its going to be very simple. if QF does not get what they want they will hand us again the short stick. this also includes any new aircraft. by the time the A380 comes maybe 3 in service the EBA is finished. as you may have seen in the papers QF will shortly annouce new orders for either the A340-500/600 or the 777 long range as replacement for the 747 . no guarantee we get that one either. and as guaranteed 747 flying longhaul crewed this ac since 1970 so the whole guarantee is a farce.
and as always wait for the details in the fine print. cant wait

[bunkmaster]

more details online,www. faaa.net

finally more details are available in regard to the eba vii. the only good thing i can see is that all future csm/css (apart from the lhr base) will be aussie based selected crew.what i dont like is the exchange of letter, reminds me of the divisional flying agreement. i like the guaranteed minimum lhr flights from 27 to 7 a week. also the "shared compulsory redundancies" whatever that means in real life. who goes first, junior , senior or the lucky dice.mhmhmm. have to read the fine print if there is one.they still try to make the cap of 870 sound a riveting achievment.sad really after all their war cries.

do have to slap myself for providing wrong info on my last thread. by the end of the next eba will have 6 A380 in the air.

[Bodum]

Its been said all before I know but let me repeat it.

No body is ever going to be 100% happy with what is offered. This is the best outcome, for protecting most of what you already have. I can think of at least 2 other departments in the company currently negotiating EBAs and they certainly havent been offered any sweeteners, like free tickets and ability to change travel companion every 6 months..The FAAA has served you well here as well as with everything else they protected and achieved for you.

Other departments are told that staff travel is not an EBA issue, it seemed to become one for Longhaul some how.

Long and the short of it is. If anyone out there is that unhappy with what the FAAA negotiated for you, do everyone a favor and just leave, find a job that does satisfy your back pocket and is constantly protected.. Somehow I think not

[easternboy]

After reading the notice on the FAAA website Im confused, how could the flight attendants be locked out if protected industrial action was being taken?

[Cornholio]

3% is good. What are we all moaning about here?

You know there are people starving every day in Africa, not to mention Marines risking their necks in Fallujah and what can you, Chief SANDWICH Maker, be bothered getting off your @rse to whinge about????? Howling about your over-paid under-worked lifestyle, that's what.

Wake up and smell the napalm, you fools. You have no grip on reality, it's plain to see.

[GalleyHag]

Cornholio

I would hope then your entire salary is donated to the starving in Africa and you are a member of the Army Reserves!!

Im pleased to see your hatred for Qantas extends further then Tech Crew.

[DEFCON4]

Sharpening Pencils?

QFCSM/Bunkmaster
Before your career as a flight attendant you were doing what?....Sharpening pencils for Cityrail and being paid a quarter of what you earn now.We are well paid for what we do.Take a year off and work in the real world and you will be back sharpening pencils for.....?Energy Australia

[qfcsm]

You know it's such a shame when such comments are made without any knowledge of the subject.

In fact I used to be an exec fatcat and I had a bunch of office kickers sharpening my pencil for me. And I know only to well about 'life in the real world'.

What you don't seem to be seeing is that the 'real world' is nearly upon you. The real flying days are all but gone. And I have been around long enough to know!

That said, what this whole thread is about is "WHY".

I respect your opinion that it is a good deal although I don't share it - not one bit!

However what I don't understand is that less than a couple of months ago this very deal was offered to the FAAA and they rejected it out of hand citing they would not allow the London base to open. We all know that was foolhardy but at least it was a starting point.

And following threats of industrial action QF began to hurt. There was no need to carry out the threat and risk being locked out. The threat was enough to send customers panicking and selecting other carriers - in droves!

So we now have the FAAA in front of the commission trying to stop the London base and in walks Mr Dixon.

I don't know if the FAAA are intimidated by GD but to go from a commission hearing on the London base to an in principle EBA deal in one afternoon is bizarre to say the least.

And all I want to know is WHY.

WHY the FAAA back flip?
WHY agree to the MASSIVE cap of 870?
WHY agree to 3% that was always available (and to all QF staff)?
WHY hand over 45% of international flying to the whim of QF?
WHY consider deleting redundant clauses 'a good deal'?

Simple question and all we want is simple answer about what happened. And please don't say it's because it's a good deal. That's just a cop out.

[DEFCON4]

The time to complain was last year
The LHR base was always going ahead...we voted for it by allowing datal axpiration of the cap.
The current executive were the people who said:vote no.
You can`t have been around too long ...you are a junior csm.
Life and the world is changing but we still have a great well paid job.
These guys did not roll over...considering Dixon`s rhetoric about a fight,they have done extremely well.
All of these points have been made by others elsewhere.Your emotion/anger clouds your perception of reality.
Former exec/fatcat...I doubt it!