FAAA (merged)

[bunkmaster]

todays comment

Clarity
Bodum: spend a bit of looking at figures as to why the American airlines in trouble, not just picking up headlines in the newspapers. Read reports from financial journos. The cheapest u.s carrier jetblue has a labour cost of around 24.3%. united, american, etc used to be double and with the concessions of their unions they are still somewhere between the 30% to 35%. If you bother spending time looking at the qf figures they show labour costs are around 23.7% and going down. as for European airlines, BA, Lufthansa, Air France etc.(not el cheapos) crew earn a lot more (and some of them have government pension attached to them) but we all know the cost of leaving in Europe. Sing air earns similar less tax, low housing loans, free health care. THAT makes QF crew cheap.
Defcon4: wans’t there a promise to get professional negotiators in and the best legal advise etc. fro the FAAA. Must be an Australian first to have an agreement before the official negotiations even start. As for options, the faaa wouldn’t be the first to keep on negotiating beyond a date. Remember bookings where down, make no mistake the pressure was on for GD. the point is stick to your promises. we all know you never get everthing but .....
Argusmoon: you need a life. Contribute to the debate but don’t get personal.
Str: if its true that only one crew member per flight to London say no more, aussie based crew going to be the outcasts on the run. Another shortcoming of the EBA (if its true)
SydGirl:you are correct the IR laws will change, but most likely not before July 05. they did not have to do a deal (but I respect your point). the questions remains WHAT did GD say to them to sign up in one afternoon?
You are going to see the hard sell of the eba from qf and faaa via the forums and meetings.
As always the devil is in the details. Lets wait until we get a copy and then dissect it and find some more interesting points.

[DEFCON4]

BUNKMASTER

Otherwise known as the BACK GALLEY BOOFHEAD...You know zero about the negotiating process and even less about about Industrial law.No argument,no facts,just empty rhetoric and assertions.Give us something from reliable quotable sources instead of something you make up while squatting."They did not have to do a deal"...how do you know that?.Just another assertion with no basis

There was never a promise by the FAAA to employ professional negotiators.Mijatov is a very passionate individual who rolls over for nobody.HE was the one who was against the last EBA.Give up the weed and get back to reality.

[bunkmaster]

office time well spend

presumable defcon4 sits in the faaa office is and spends time (resources) defending his buddies.
memory lane from meetings and notices.
there will be no london base
will fight any increase in the cap (based on the 370 cap)
it will result in a global salary reduction
a global wage cut

hmhmmm
has gone to
London base+ most attached issues what qf wanted anyway. senority etc.
real wage rise /contradictes the original statement/n
no sell off of current conditions/ down a fair bit of flying/redundancy/dont bring up the roster review and pay equalisation again.
a cap on overseas bases (870 positions)
read skybeds /str/ captainrats points again and all the faaa memos you may then understand why the cynics have a valid point. and as far as they had to do a deal let us know why?

time to go to bed

[DEFCON4]

CAPICHE?

Once more for Bunkmaster:
1.The LHR base was always going to go ahead..Majority of crew voted for a datal limitation to the overseas base cap.
2.These(EBA7) negotiations were all about damage limitation
3.We have a 9% pay increase over 3 years.(We all get paid well enough as it is)
4.We now have a cap on bases...Now no chance of LAX being a base for example.The Company looked at it and others.
5.We still have access to LHR.A full crew complement daily,despite opinions in this forum to the contary.
6.Security over A380 flying ..which protects your long range and O.T payments
7.Shared Airbus flying,before it looked like we would lose it all.
I will ask the FAAA to produce a copy of the in principal agreement written in words of one syllable so that BUNKMASTER can digest it.
Don`t make anymore baseless assertions until you have read it.
You keep going on (like a broken CD)about them "having to do a deal".No one had to do a deal about anything.It is called NEGOTIATING.There had already been months of preliminary discussion before formal discussions began.An inprincipal agreement was never going to take that long.The agreement was reached inside the parameters of "formal discussions".
I have just explained it to my 10 year old and he understands it.Perhaps he can send you an e-mail and clarify it for you.
EBA7 IS AND WAS ABOUT DAMAGE CONTROL...Capiche?

[qfcsm]

Mmmm, wonder where you get the idea bases in other ports can't go ahead.

The cap is 870 but is not specific to any base.
Currently we have 370 (or there abouts) in AKL and BKK which leaves 400.
About 200 Aussie crew have put their hand up to go to LHR which leaves 200 slots for UK locals.
But that's if QF decides to employ that many.

Nothing precludes them from deciding to use 100 slots in LHR and opening a base in LAX with the other 100.

Or perhaps you know more about this deal than the rest of us.... now how could that be!

[DEFCON4]

Uneconomical

The numbers you suggest would be totally uneconomical and dare I say pointless.The number of crew necessary to"Man" the LHR base was actually closer to a thousand,hence the continued access of Australian crew to this port.The problem for Qantas with both these ports has been the room night requirements.In LAX for example the room night requirement is almost 6000/month.Hence the need to spread crew complements over three hotels.Economies of scale would not apply if the 870 overseas based crew were scattered in the manner you suggest.Nor would rostering efficiencies be achieved.
Playing Devil`s Advocate with "what if`s"is pointless until you read the in principal agreement,then you can make a well informed asessment.

[qfcsm]

So where do you get your information from?
Sounds like you are very close to the 'action'.

Maybe you are just a company plant revving up crew who simply want to have a say and ask some questions.

If you are such an authority then tell us who you really are or we will just go believing you are one of those crew who think they know it all!

Hey what about a small but economic base in Mumbai, or maybe Shanghai or Hong Kong. Nothing to stop that and you could employ cheap labour on the basis of culture - and still stay within the cap!

If previous QF interpretations of EBA and Award clauses is anything to go by (product and recognition come to mind) then QF will do whatever they fancy.

[skybed]

Defcon4
Once again you need to go back and read what’s been put in previous threads. Your continuous outbursts of anger and lack of understanding why crew questioning this in-principle agreement (or should the faaa put out a new headline damage controlled in-principle agreement) has me more then ever convinced you are sitting at the union office. Previous promises/ memos as pointed out and the factual news so far don’t quit add up, and I say it AGAIN lets wait and see the details. As for your argument in economics of scale to have a small base in India or somewhere, just a little reminder that the NZ base was down well below a hundred and only ever had around a 130 or so. you r place of residence is gwandwanaland and you act like you are of the planet.

[DEFCON4]

The Cheap Seats

To set the record straight:
1.I am not on the union
2.I am a CSS
3.I have been flying 26 years
4.As to what you think of me...I could care less
I have seen this all before and in particular 1988.Individuals running off at the mouth with no information but plenty of hysterical speculation.Wait until you read a copy of the inprincipal
agreement(I Have) before attempting to participate in any type of informed debate.
When the bid system was introduced there was this same sort of mentality:didn`t want change,wages will be reduced,conditions lost.The same people who didn`t want change(the Bid System)would now scream if it was taken away.
Lets compare apples with apples.....Currently you have 27 flights a week to LHR....crew northbound,southbound,slipping.North and south they must slip in BKK or SIN and soon HKG do the math.AKL has ONE service a day to LAX,and an occasional overnight from East coast Australia and the crew there(AKL Based)are now employed by Jetconnect.
Compare the rostering efficiencies and the critical mass required and you will see your(SKYBED) argument is spurious.
I am done.
"WHILE THE DOGS BARK THE WAGON ROLLS ON"

[str]

FYI - Just confirmed with FAAA that the 1 flight per day will be exclusively for Australian crew. This will now be put in writting in the 'in principle EBA VII'.

Still a dud EBA though.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Not wanting to pick a fight with you str, but your last post proves one important fact that I believe EVERYBODY should observe PRIOR to making any judgement of the in principle agreement:

Until you are in possession of all the facts, you are not qualified to make an educated decision.

Your latest post proves that 'galley gossip' can be just as flawed as the agreement you believe it to be. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the FAAA, this is proof (yet again) that the 'experts' in the galley are no more an expert than Merv and Doreen from the Airport Kiosk.

Get the facts THEN make a decision, not the other way around. The consequences could be detrimental to yourself and your colleagues.

[str]

Mr Seatback 2,

Actually the company only agreed with this toward the end of last week. Thats why the 'inprinciple' agreement which is currently at the FAAA and QF website does not state exclusivety of access to LHR flights by Aussie crew.

So if you read the current printed agreement the company could quite easily have put only one slot for Australian crew per day.

The FAAA assures us now that this will be put in writting in the new copy of the EBA 7 which will go out to vote. Don't understand why they didn't ensure this was in writting in the first place though.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Sometimes, when you are writing something as involved as an agreement, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Like I said, not attacking you str, but attacking the points that some individuals make on these and other threads based PURELY on gossip rather than possession of all the facts.

[jetjockey7]

At Last

Mr. Seatback 2....At last a voice of commonsense and reason.I agree with you wholeheartedly.. a little bit too much speculation and not enough concrete information.

[galley_gossiper]

jetlagger

The word upline suggests many others will be voting no.

I will disagree with you on that one.
Have recently come back from an AKL-LAX trip, various crew of various seniority. Most said they would vote it up, most reasons talked about were they were scared to take industrial action. The feeling was one of relief that an agreement was reached.

This is one that will get voted up.

I still think the free ticket to LHR should be a ticket to 'anywhere'. A lot of people would not want to go to LHR, even if it was free. Me-fine-self included

[qfcsm]

Well I have been patient and now the EBA VII document is available - although it is two days late!

And as I have mentioned before the overseas base clause is WIDE OPEN!

Lets have a look:

12 OVERSEAS BASES
12.1 This clause replaces Clause 17 of EBA VI, that in turn replaced clause 68 of EBA IV and Clause 23 of EBA V.

12.2 In the event that Qantas Airways Limited decides to open additional overseas base(s) with Long Haul cabin crew, the Company will consult with the Association 3 months prior to opening the base.

12.3 For the life of this Agreement, the Company commits to ensuring that the number of crew employed in overseas bases will be no more than 870 FTE including crew employed in the category of Customer Service Manager and Customer Service Supervisor in the London base.

So where does it say that QF will not open other bases?
Where does it say that it will not shut BKK and open LAX?
Where does it say that it will not open a small base in Mumbai or Shanghai or Hong Kong?

IT DOESN'T!

And there's more. Read this little gem:

15 UNDERTAKINGS ON COMPULSORY
In addition to the requirement under EBA III for the Company to consult with the FAAA on measures to avert or minimise compulsory redundancies:

• No Australian based crew member will be made compulsorily redundant as a result of any decision to open or operate an overseas base.

• Where the Company is required to make crew members compulsorily redundant in circumstances not related to the opening or operation of an overseas base:

o Company will ensure that the number of cabin crew made redundant is shared across all Australian and overseas bases that have been affected by the circumstances which have resulted in the requirement for compulsory redundancies;

o the Company will not take into account the relative employment cost of Australian based crew when determining the number of Australian based cabin crew to be made compulsorily redundant.

So a UK hire or a BKK or AKL base hire gets to keep their job working for an Aussie firm when Ausiies are being turfed onto the dole queue - BLOODY UN-AUSTRALIAN.

But that's ok because you will be eventually replaced by a casual!

18 CASUAL EMPLOYMENT

And you have to love the two clauses [20 & 21] that refer to clauses in a previous EBA that were date redundand. QF must have been laughing so hard at the FAAA insisting on these!

So this is the good, tight deal that we have all been waiting for.
My position stands - it is not a good deal and I will be voting NO!

[jettlager]

Its a ****e deal for all except the trough feeders.

An emphatic NO.

[DEFCON4]

Three Blind Mice

Do you three share the same house?

[qfcsm]

DEFCON if you have nothing constructive to add to this forum can I ask you to please go start your own where you can bag as much as you like.
Thanks....

[DEFCON4]

Awww C`mon

You Guys....this is the 21st century the aviation industry is changing.We all still have a well paid job,great superannuation,shares that are increasing in value,travel benefits,the list goes on.Everybody goes to work to earn bucks to create a lifestyle.As far as wage earners are concerned we are in the top 10%(ABS Figures)in Australia.Still you complain,still you want to vote no.What did you do for a living before flying?...I am damn sure it didn`t pay as well,you didn`t have as much block time off and chances are it was a lot more stressful.
When you can`t accommodate the change....exit stage right, to a lesser paid, more stressful job.People have left flying because they felt badly done by, and everyone of them would love to come back!!
BTW:If LHR is such an important destination for crew why are there so many LHR patterns in O/T for all categories?
"WHILE THE DOGS BARK THE WAGON ROLLS ON"