FAAA (merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA Sellout Sisters
Well, well, well.... Who has been paid off!
The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.
What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!
The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?
Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".
To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????
The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.
What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!
The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?
Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".
To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????
Last edited by qfcsm; 2nd Nov 2004 at 23:05.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SYD
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Strike OFF, STRIKE BREAKERS not required!
Looks like the FAAA have done "some sort of a deal". Comments about that will follow, however NO strike over Xmas. I hope all those boys and girls who accepted very short term contracts lately left the door open at their previous workplace. They are going to need it thanks to good old QF Mgmt.
Qantas averts holiday strike by cabin crew
By Scott Rochfort
November 3, 2004
Qantas averted threatened Christmas holiday strike action by its 4000 long-haul flight attendants yesterday after agreeing to limit the number of cabin crew it bases overseas.
Both the airline and the Flight Attendants Association of Australia claimed victory yesterday over the agreement, which will allow Qantas to push ahead with its plans to set up a 400-strong crew base in London next June.
Under the deal Qantas will be allowed to lift the cap of foreign-based crews from 370 to 870, allowing the airline to also bolster the number of crews at its current Bangkok and Auckland bases.
The head of the union's long-haul division, Michael Mijatov, said: "The general public can be very confident there will be no industrial action."
Under the in-principle agreement over the union's new enterprise agreement with Qantas, Mr Mijatov also claimed victory over Qantas's guarantees to give Australian long-haul crews at least one daily service to London and a 9 per cent pay rise over three years.
Under the deal, the airline said it would still achieve its original aim of saving $18 million a year from the London base by cutting hotel bills, meal allowances and through rostering efficiencies.
However, QANTAS only made passing reference to the 357 cabin crew it has recently hired on three-month contracts as possilbe strike-breakers. The airline has the freedom to terminate the 357 fixed-term contractors with four weeks' severance pay.
Qantas also has the freedom not to renew the contracts of another 150 cabin crew it has on 11-month contracts when its London base is operational next June.
Qantas averts holiday strike by cabin crew
By Scott Rochfort
November 3, 2004
Qantas averted threatened Christmas holiday strike action by its 4000 long-haul flight attendants yesterday after agreeing to limit the number of cabin crew it bases overseas.
Both the airline and the Flight Attendants Association of Australia claimed victory yesterday over the agreement, which will allow Qantas to push ahead with its plans to set up a 400-strong crew base in London next June.
Under the deal Qantas will be allowed to lift the cap of foreign-based crews from 370 to 870, allowing the airline to also bolster the number of crews at its current Bangkok and Auckland bases.
The head of the union's long-haul division, Michael Mijatov, said: "The general public can be very confident there will be no industrial action."
Under the in-principle agreement over the union's new enterprise agreement with Qantas, Mr Mijatov also claimed victory over Qantas's guarantees to give Australian long-haul crews at least one daily service to London and a 9 per cent pay rise over three years.
Under the deal, the airline said it would still achieve its original aim of saving $18 million a year from the London base by cutting hotel bills, meal allowances and through rostering efficiencies.
However, QANTAS only made passing reference to the 357 cabin crew it has recently hired on three-month contracts as possilbe strike-breakers. The airline has the freedom to terminate the 357 fixed-term contractors with four weeks' severance pay.
Qantas also has the freedom not to renew the contracts of another 150 cabin crew it has on 11-month contracts when its London base is operational next June.
Last edited by Chicken or Fish?; 3rd Nov 2004 at 02:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well, well.... Who has been paid off!
The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.
What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!
The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?
Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".
To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????
The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.
What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!
The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?
Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".
To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA, What dud deal....!
Does anyone else feel the FAAA 'In Principal' proposal with Qantas smells like a dead fish?
I am dumb struck............and I'm totally angered at the FAAA leadership.
I was one of the many who attended the union meetings. I walked away encouraged by our solidarity, our strength in numbers and our belief in our common cause; all the galley talk was the same everywhere you flew, we've had enough! We are all willing to take this fight to Qantas and stop the rot on our working conditions. We have scarificed so much to help achieve "record" profits "YEAR on YEAR", I am tired of being kicked in the teeth by Qantas management.
So what does the FAAA leadership do?
* They accept an in principal agreement 3% pay rise for each year for 3 years, have they not seen the CPI? Have they forgotten the 66% management payrise!
Has everyone forgotten the sacrifices we have all made to make this company succeed in the worst possible travel environment? (9/11, SARS, Bali Bombing etc, etc)
* They have also accepted in principle one (1), 1 flight of the 7 per day, to access London. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING......? What a F*#@ing joke.
This deal smell's so foul, i want to vomit!
I want job security; I want security in my earning ability. I don't want a hand out, they can shove that bloody free trip to London offered to each crew member up their proverbial's! What the......??? Are they cost cutting?
The London base will literally mean a 15-20% pay cut to hundreds if not thousands of flight attendants. Qantas Management just awarded themseleves "a 66% Pay Rise for god's sake"
Lets rally every sensible QF flight attendant to read this proposal very carefully and see it for what it is, a dead fish! I ask that we all Vote "AGAINST" this proposal, and lets "FORCE" the FAAA leadership to go back and work for what they were all elected to do.
The FAAA have "talked the talk, but they have not walked the walk" Lets force the FAAA leadership to go back and do their job.
We voted these people in to fight the hard fight, and improve our job security.... what they have delivered (so quickly i must add) was a package that suits only the elite and eternally senior flight attendant (seniority) in the Qantas scheme of things.
I am angered and I feel let me down, I am sure thousands of other flight attendants feel the same.
TO ALL QF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, VOTE "NO" TO THIS ABSOLUTE JOKE OF A PROPOSAL.
From one very upset galley opertator.
I am dumb struck............and I'm totally angered at the FAAA leadership.
I was one of the many who attended the union meetings. I walked away encouraged by our solidarity, our strength in numbers and our belief in our common cause; all the galley talk was the same everywhere you flew, we've had enough! We are all willing to take this fight to Qantas and stop the rot on our working conditions. We have scarificed so much to help achieve "record" profits "YEAR on YEAR", I am tired of being kicked in the teeth by Qantas management.
So what does the FAAA leadership do?
* They accept an in principal agreement 3% pay rise for each year for 3 years, have they not seen the CPI? Have they forgotten the 66% management payrise!
Has everyone forgotten the sacrifices we have all made to make this company succeed in the worst possible travel environment? (9/11, SARS, Bali Bombing etc, etc)
* They have also accepted in principle one (1), 1 flight of the 7 per day, to access London. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING......? What a F*#@ing joke.
This deal smell's so foul, i want to vomit!
I want job security; I want security in my earning ability. I don't want a hand out, they can shove that bloody free trip to London offered to each crew member up their proverbial's! What the......??? Are they cost cutting?
The London base will literally mean a 15-20% pay cut to hundreds if not thousands of flight attendants. Qantas Management just awarded themseleves "a 66% Pay Rise for god's sake"
Lets rally every sensible QF flight attendant to read this proposal very carefully and see it for what it is, a dead fish! I ask that we all Vote "AGAINST" this proposal, and lets "FORCE" the FAAA leadership to go back and work for what they were all elected to do.
The FAAA have "talked the talk, but they have not walked the walk" Lets force the FAAA leadership to go back and do their job.
We voted these people in to fight the hard fight, and improve our job security.... what they have delivered (so quickly i must add) was a package that suits only the elite and eternally senior flight attendant (seniority) in the Qantas scheme of things.
I am angered and I feel let me down, I am sure thousands of other flight attendants feel the same.
TO ALL QF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, VOTE "NO" TO THIS ABSOLUTE JOKE OF A PROPOSAL.
From one very upset galley opertator.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA International has just proven themselves as valuable to its membership as Domestic/Regional is to anyone who isn't Short Haul. 
Domestic/Regional has its own 'Sellout Sisters'. And I have a feeling the conditions we 'enjoy' at JQ now will be seen as a holiday come EBA 3.
The FAAA is fast losing relevance to the majority of its membership. Good to see International Division keeping up with Domestic/Regional.
Domestic/Regional has its own 'Sellout Sisters'. And I have a feeling the conditions we 'enjoy' at JQ now will be seen as a holiday come EBA 3.
The FAAA is fast losing relevance to the majority of its membership. Good to see International Division keeping up with Domestic/Regional.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up and smell the(english)Roses
In EBA6 we voted to amongst other things to lift the cap on overseas bases.This was legally binding.Under the circumstances I would say,not a bad deal.I don`t think "thousands" of crew will be financially disadvantaged.I know I won`t be and i go to LHR all the time..and not out of choice.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get in the real world
This is not a bad deal, it's not great but it's ok.
Galley op put your name forward for election next time and show us your stuff.
90% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.
The LHR base is going ahead if we like it or not, we must control 747 & A380 flying they will be the keys to long haul flights. A share of a330 will do us fine, S/haul are already struggling with the product. Should of been with them out of HKG on the weekend, product delivery was not good and not one PA in Madarin & Cantonise for the wonderful a330 entertainment system failing for the first 3 hrs.
Don't hold out on things we will never be able to get.
Yes we got a cap on o/s and many other things.
Galley op put your name forward for election next time and show us your stuff.
90% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.
The LHR base is going ahead if we like it or not, we must control 747 & A380 flying they will be the keys to long haul flights. A share of a330 will do us fine, S/haul are already struggling with the product. Should of been with them out of HKG on the weekend, product delivery was not good and not one PA in Madarin & Cantonise for the wonderful a330 entertainment system failing for the first 3 hrs.
Don't hold out on things we will never be able to get.
Yes we got a cap on o/s and many other things.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it real
66% was collective across the whole board and not per person as widely reported by media. Cooper & Lybrand undervalued the executive board wages and compaired them to other companys like GMH,Ford & Telstra etc.
Ford CEO gets 16 million a year with his share options, dicko was actually way of the pace compaired to his peers.
Not a company man but just want to "Keep it real"
Incorrect facts are very damaging to real debate
Ford CEO gets 16 million a year with his share options, dicko was actually way of the pace compaired to his peers.
Not a company man but just want to "Keep it real"
Incorrect facts are very damaging to real debate
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't pretend to be an expert on Long Haul, or on EBA 6, but I would have thought the deal was at least a better alternative than using the strike breakers.
Thinking out loud, wouldn't the following have happened had this deal not been reached in principle?:
* The crew (and not all the crew I might add) would have gone on strike at the prepared date;
* In their place, the strike breakers would have operated (357 at last count...and growing had the deal not been reached);
* The planned flight disruption would be minimal (if any); and
* In the event crew went on strike out of home base (eg. NRT), these strike breaking crew would have been positioned in advance to cover planned action - thereby further minimising any disruption.
This, coupled with the fact that not all Long Haul crew agreed with industrial action (eg. those going to LHR), would always mean that the purpose of industrial action (ie. having your actions speak for you) would be minimal given the amount of planning and spending QF have outlayed for the purposes of thwarting any 'point' being made by the crew.
Don't get me wrong - I'm the last person to defend QF. Their behaviour throughout this whole episode has been nothing short of appalling - in the way they've treated the crew, tried to divide them, and even in their dealings with the strike-breaking crew (some of whom had no idea what they were getting themselves in for until it was too late).
Without wanting to start/continue WW3, the argument re: loss of earning potential is POINTLESS! The AIRC would not, under any circumstances, wear an argument from the FAAA re: loss of earnings from allowances, when these same allowances are provided for the purposes of purchasing meals downroute. Given that these allowances are not provided for the purposes of building an income (just ask the ATO), I'd advise from my own experience not to go down that road.
The previous EBA, as has been mentioned previously, provided for an expansion of the overseas cap anyway - if it can be set for the life of the Agreement (rather than as an independent industrial agreement, as it stands now), does this not provide security in the form of guaranteed jobs? After all, wasn't part of the whole LHR argument based on the fact that no commitment was being given from QF regarding the possibility of redundancies flowing from the establishment of LHR base? Has this not been averted now an actual cap has been set overall across all overseas bases?
Just a few questions, and thoughts, from an interested observer.
PS. You are right though about the 3% p/a. I'd be getting that changed ASAP too if I were in your position.
Thinking out loud, wouldn't the following have happened had this deal not been reached in principle?:
* The crew (and not all the crew I might add) would have gone on strike at the prepared date;
* In their place, the strike breakers would have operated (357 at last count...and growing had the deal not been reached);
* The planned flight disruption would be minimal (if any); and
* In the event crew went on strike out of home base (eg. NRT), these strike breaking crew would have been positioned in advance to cover planned action - thereby further minimising any disruption.
This, coupled with the fact that not all Long Haul crew agreed with industrial action (eg. those going to LHR), would always mean that the purpose of industrial action (ie. having your actions speak for you) would be minimal given the amount of planning and spending QF have outlayed for the purposes of thwarting any 'point' being made by the crew.
Don't get me wrong - I'm the last person to defend QF. Their behaviour throughout this whole episode has been nothing short of appalling - in the way they've treated the crew, tried to divide them, and even in their dealings with the strike-breaking crew (some of whom had no idea what they were getting themselves in for until it was too late).
Without wanting to start/continue WW3, the argument re: loss of earning potential is POINTLESS! The AIRC would not, under any circumstances, wear an argument from the FAAA re: loss of earnings from allowances, when these same allowances are provided for the purposes of purchasing meals downroute. Given that these allowances are not provided for the purposes of building an income (just ask the ATO), I'd advise from my own experience not to go down that road.
The previous EBA, as has been mentioned previously, provided for an expansion of the overseas cap anyway - if it can be set for the life of the Agreement (rather than as an independent industrial agreement, as it stands now), does this not provide security in the form of guaranteed jobs? After all, wasn't part of the whole LHR argument based on the fact that no commitment was being given from QF regarding the possibility of redundancies flowing from the establishment of LHR base? Has this not been averted now an actual cap has been set overall across all overseas bases?
Just a few questions, and thoughts, from an interested observer.
PS. You are right though about the 3% p/a. I'd be getting that changed ASAP too if I were in your position.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SYD
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its probably the best we're going to get....
3%, whilst no where near the increase the board gave themselves, is pretty much the national standard unfortunately.....
I thought it was interesting that the review of the seniority system has been removed..... I'm guessing the FAAA reps are fairly senior!
3%, whilst no where near the increase the board gave themselves, is pretty much the national standard unfortunately.....
I thought it was interesting that the review of the seniority system has been removed..... I'm guessing the FAAA reps are fairly senior!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of you are missing the point.
1. How much did the union officials get paid off to accept this garbage deal?
2. Why did they back down after they won a nasty, bitter election campaign fought on the premise of "being strong"?
3. Is it the best deal? Already QF is saying they are talking to the ASU about upping the 3% offer to their members dur to strike threats - I say go back and get more you gooses!
4. If you think the QF win in this is just the $18M for accommodation and allowances you live under a rock! If you think QF cabin crew won't be worst off you also live under a rock! The reality is that QF will clean up on this deal.
Think about these facts:
- a reduction in long range duties of at least 40 sectors per week x 15 crew (around $200,000 per week)
- LHR base crew can work up to 240 hours which is 40-50 more than Aust based crew and for a salary = $$$$????
The fact remains that QF were hurting in the hip pocket and the FAAA had probably the best chance in history of securing a good deal. We're not asking for miracles but a reasonably return on the pain and suffering and chipping away of conditions we have put up with the last few years to keep QF afloat. And to add insult to injury is the fact that QF STILL claim we are struggling in a volitile market and that staff can be proud of their achievements and have 3% per annum (barely covers CPI) while the executive fatcats lick at the cream.
To crew I say get out from under the rock and bash on the FAAA door and demand answers and a better deal.
To the FAAA I say give back the cash and get down to business.
1. How much did the union officials get paid off to accept this garbage deal?
2. Why did they back down after they won a nasty, bitter election campaign fought on the premise of "being strong"?
3. Is it the best deal? Already QF is saying they are talking to the ASU about upping the 3% offer to their members dur to strike threats - I say go back and get more you gooses!
4. If you think the QF win in this is just the $18M for accommodation and allowances you live under a rock! If you think QF cabin crew won't be worst off you also live under a rock! The reality is that QF will clean up on this deal.
Think about these facts:
- a reduction in long range duties of at least 40 sectors per week x 15 crew (around $200,000 per week)
- LHR base crew can work up to 240 hours which is 40-50 more than Aust based crew and for a salary = $$$$????
The fact remains that QF were hurting in the hip pocket and the FAAA had probably the best chance in history of securing a good deal. We're not asking for miracles but a reasonably return on the pain and suffering and chipping away of conditions we have put up with the last few years to keep QF afloat. And to add insult to injury is the fact that QF STILL claim we are struggling in a volitile market and that staff can be proud of their achievements and have 3% per annum (barely covers CPI) while the executive fatcats lick at the cream.
To crew I say get out from under the rock and bash on the FAAA door and demand answers and a better deal.
To the FAAA I say give back the cash and get down to business.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've told the FAAA I will be voting NO and then withdrawing my membership.
We get nothing out of this. Wonder what the FAAA got? They just purchased property in Mascot so maybe cash came in handy?
We get nothing out of this. Wonder what the FAAA got? They just purchased property in Mascot so maybe cash came in handy?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a bit of an odd turn of events.
The FAAA execs have gone from "strike,strike,strike" to "deal,deal,deal" very quickly.
Personally, I think maybe they didnt think they had the support for a sustained industrial dispute. Or maybe the strike-breaking force was getting a bit too large. Who knows?
Reading the letter of understanding, the only positives I can see are that QF have said that we will retain a minimum of 30% of all international Operations on the A330 and 767 ... that is a good deal (considering the amount of A330 international sectors we are operating at the moment !)
But the rest is a bit bland.
Whats the free ticket to LHR about? You cant get to LHR on staff travel anyway! But I do agree with being able to change staff travel buddies every six months (although not an EBA issue, and one all staff will benefit from ... not just us).
methinks it will get voted up.
The FAAA execs have gone from "strike,strike,strike" to "deal,deal,deal" very quickly.
Personally, I think maybe they didnt think they had the support for a sustained industrial dispute. Or maybe the strike-breaking force was getting a bit too large. Who knows?
Reading the letter of understanding, the only positives I can see are that QF have said that we will retain a minimum of 30% of all international Operations on the A330 and 767 ... that is a good deal (considering the amount of A330 international sectors we are operating at the moment !)
But the rest is a bit bland.
Whats the free ticket to LHR about? You cant get to LHR on staff travel anyway! But I do agree with being able to change staff travel buddies every six months (although not an EBA issue, and one all staff will benefit from ... not just us).
methinks it will get voted up.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backdown????
How can anyone consider this a backdown?Further foreign bases (eg LAX)have been prevented,we still have access to LHR,maintain access to A330 what else do you want.....flowers with every payslip?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SYD
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that its only Sydney crews that do the London trips anyway. It doesn't seem to be a bad deal for the other bases.
I noted with some interest however that this deal is very senior friendly: No review of the seniority system and trips to LHR are likely be senior trips now.
But I'm voting yes - as PP said, better to get 90% of a reasonable deal than 100% of sweet FA (and I don't mean flight attendant).
I noted with some interest however that this deal is very senior friendly: No review of the seniority system and trips to LHR are likely be senior trips now.
But I'm voting yes - as PP said, better to get 90% of a reasonable deal than 100% of sweet FA (and I don't mean flight attendant).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
str
You do get something out of this:
* Guaranteed flying on A380 (not previously agreed to) - and given the allotment of A330 flying to Short Haul, don't think QF wouldn't have given A380 to someone else who does it cheaper!;
* Fixed cap of 870 for life of EBA (not as a separate document, like the current one was that created the mess you found yourselves in);
* No LAX base as a result of above (you want to talk lost allowances and long sector pay qfcsm? Let's talk what you could have potentially lost had THIS base gone through as well);
* No redundancies (a commitment that was never able to be provided prior to this agreement); and
* LHR flying maintained at 1 a day (as opposed to none, which was the case before)
Fact is, LHR would have gone through ANYWAY. Another fact is that it's going through with at least some fences protecting jobs and flying for Australian crew is something better than nothing (which is what you had before). That, and the fact you don't have the strike breaking crew destroying what fractured position the Long Haul crew were holding prior to this agreement.
Is it perfect? No of course not. BUT WHAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE?
Fact is - NO MATTER what agreement was reached, you would NEVER get EVERYBODY 100% happy with the outcome. Bargaining and negotiating means give and take from both sides. QF didn't have to guarantee any LHR flying for Australian crew. Nor did they have to do a lot of what was agreed to. And neither does the FAAA - but an agreement was reached and in short much was achieved.
I would also be VERY careful, as has been said in this and other threads, of throwing around the whole 'QF paying off the FAAA' argument. If anyone feels the FAAA and QF have participated in any form of corrupt behaviour, then it is your duty as a MEMBER to report it to ICAC.
surfside 6 - loved the flowers with payslips comment. Just beautiful.
PS. I'm no FAAA official, but I recognise a decent agreement when I see one.
You do get something out of this:
* Guaranteed flying on A380 (not previously agreed to) - and given the allotment of A330 flying to Short Haul, don't think QF wouldn't have given A380 to someone else who does it cheaper!;
* Fixed cap of 870 for life of EBA (not as a separate document, like the current one was that created the mess you found yourselves in);
* No LAX base as a result of above (you want to talk lost allowances and long sector pay qfcsm? Let's talk what you could have potentially lost had THIS base gone through as well);
* No redundancies (a commitment that was never able to be provided prior to this agreement); and
* LHR flying maintained at 1 a day (as opposed to none, which was the case before)
Fact is, LHR would have gone through ANYWAY. Another fact is that it's going through with at least some fences protecting jobs and flying for Australian crew is something better than nothing (which is what you had before). That, and the fact you don't have the strike breaking crew destroying what fractured position the Long Haul crew were holding prior to this agreement.
Is it perfect? No of course not. BUT WHAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE?
Fact is - NO MATTER what agreement was reached, you would NEVER get EVERYBODY 100% happy with the outcome. Bargaining and negotiating means give and take from both sides. QF didn't have to guarantee any LHR flying for Australian crew. Nor did they have to do a lot of what was agreed to. And neither does the FAAA - but an agreement was reached and in short much was achieved.
I would also be VERY careful, as has been said in this and other threads, of throwing around the whole 'QF paying off the FAAA' argument. If anyone feels the FAAA and QF have participated in any form of corrupt behaviour, then it is your duty as a MEMBER to report it to ICAC.
surfside 6 - loved the flowers with payslips comment. Just beautiful.
PS. I'm no FAAA official, but I recognise a decent agreement when I see one.