NEW Australian Airlines (AO) EBA 2005 (merged)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biscuit Chucker
Wasn't addressing you in particular...just reporting from my own experiences when the same thing happened to me. Wasn't pretty.
Rollz...
A few valid points were raised in your post, but in response let me express the following:
* Low cost does NOT equal Low wages. Southwest airlines is an example. They are among the best paid crew in the US in accordance with their efficiencies.
*
Aaaah...now therein lies the problem. What exactly these days is full service? Is it having a J class cabin? Is it not making passengers pay for their meals? In a world of low cost airlines, what defines full service?
Last I looked on the AO website, it marketed itself as a leisure, full service airline. I think the particular distinction you mean to make is multi-class difference in product (ie. Qantas vs. AO).
*
So...AO crew should be thankful for their lot because staff in other areas of the world get paid less? Where does this comparison end - Air Namibia? Ghana Airways?
AO turned a $1.1m profit in spite of soaring fuel costs and recovery from SARS. AN Intl, by comparison, only began turning a profit regularly in it's final years (after approx. 5-6 years of running losses) after succumbing to the Asian Economic crisis of the early 90's. In AO's case, quite a speedy recovery, don't you think?
Considering that AO's largest employee group is the Cabin Crew, whom do you think were largely responsible for helping AO manage to reach a profit (given that, as you have pointed out, an airlines second highest cost is employees?)
After 2 years of hard work, I would think that an additional 2-year scales at a measly 4% is not much to ask - particularly if the expansion on the cards is going to increase the number of new crew at Year 1 rates into the ranks.
*
Pushing which airline to its limits? AO - wholly owned by the QF Group, which last I looked QF absorbed AO's profits into their own record-breaking annual results last financial year?
I don't think it's too much to ask for QF (via AO) to give back what some may rightfully suggest is 'the fruits of their success'.
It is lazy management that constantly look to their crew's wages for savings. I notice no-one has mentioned the 5-6 day trips in Sabah, where crew simply waited until the flight back to SYD, or the multi day trips to DPS.
Me thinks, and correct me at will people, that many savings could be generated from reducing slip time through a more cost-driven schedule allowing cost efficiencies to occur in many other areas of the airline (ie. hotels, allowances, transfers). Yes it would reduce crew allowances, but they're never used as income, are they!
*
No one is disputing the proposed cap removals, but again, why should AO crew settle for less? Their demand for 9% over 3 years, + an additional 2% per year of service (which is 2 years max anyway = 4%) is quite reasonable, given that their Agreement was based on being a start up airline.
They already provide many efficiencies via a simpler Agreement. I fail to see why they should agree to conditions which create a further gulf between them and their big sister, for no other reason than penny pinching. Financial incentive is as good as any other I would have thought!
*
Who says they'd get more time off? Bid periods - WHAT bid periods? They DON'T BID - that's the other part of the problem. No control exists for the crew over their roster other than trip swapping.
*
True - but, industrial action can also have a POSITIVE effect on the airline.
AO would VERY UNLIKELY be allowed to go bust, simply by way of the fact that QF has access to cheaper labour than it could ever possibly imagine achieving at Long Haul. Even with the demanded increases, AO is still cheaper by a mile because they are not themselves a legacy carrier with the associated historical background.
Just my opinion also. Correct me at will people, but I hardly believe that AO crew haven't earned what they're after.
Wasn't addressing you in particular...just reporting from my own experiences when the same thing happened to me. Wasn't pretty.
Rollz...
A few valid points were raised in your post, but in response let me express the following:
* Low cost does NOT equal Low wages. Southwest airlines is an example. They are among the best paid crew in the US in accordance with their efficiencies.
*
"You dont get paid as much as an average full service airline flight attendant.
Last I looked on the AO website, it marketed itself as a leisure, full service airline. I think the particular distinction you mean to make is multi-class difference in product (ie. Qantas vs. AO).
*
"If not, Qantas is still an option or go and work in Europe and see what is like to get paid peanuts for the amount of work you do, if you think you have it bad. The work-to-pay ratio is nothing near AO."
AO turned a $1.1m profit in spite of soaring fuel costs and recovery from SARS. AN Intl, by comparison, only began turning a profit regularly in it's final years (after approx. 5-6 years of running losses) after succumbing to the Asian Economic crisis of the early 90's. In AO's case, quite a speedy recovery, don't you think?
Considering that AO's largest employee group is the Cabin Crew, whom do you think were largely responsible for helping AO manage to reach a profit (given that, as you have pointed out, an airlines second highest cost is employees?)
After 2 years of hard work, I would think that an additional 2-year scales at a measly 4% is not much to ask - particularly if the expansion on the cards is going to increase the number of new crew at Year 1 rates into the ranks.
*
"I'am sure you are all hardworking loyal people and deserve what is best. But given the circumstances I think you should really think twice and realise that with such low profit margins you may be asking for a little too much and pushing the airline to its limits."
I don't think it's too much to ask for QF (via AO) to give back what some may rightfully suggest is 'the fruits of their success'.
It is lazy management that constantly look to their crew's wages for savings. I notice no-one has mentioned the 5-6 day trips in Sabah, where crew simply waited until the flight back to SYD, or the multi day trips to DPS.
Me thinks, and correct me at will people, that many savings could be generated from reducing slip time through a more cost-driven schedule allowing cost efficiencies to occur in many other areas of the airline (ie. hotels, allowances, transfers). Yes it would reduce crew allowances, but they're never used as income, are they!
*
"Removing the current EBA restriction of flying only 767 aircraft and flying within a 4 hour time zone, I personally see that as an advantage. It's the airlines first step to initiate its growth strategy, which would increase yields and so on."
They already provide many efficiencies via a simpler Agreement. I fail to see why they should agree to conditions which create a further gulf between them and their big sister, for no other reason than penny pinching. Financial incentive is as good as any other I would have thought!
*
"Hey, you would probably have a roster similiar to Qantas crew then, where you work longer hours and get more time off during your bid periods and more money in your pocket."
*
"Seriously guys, if an industrial action was to take place it can have a detrimental effect on the airline and hence affect your future employment with the airline. If the AO goes bust, because of extra costs you will all be left without a job."
AO would VERY UNLIKELY be allowed to go bust, simply by way of the fact that QF has access to cheaper labour than it could ever possibly imagine achieving at Long Haul. Even with the demanded increases, AO is still cheaper by a mile because they are not themselves a legacy carrier with the associated historical background.
Just my opinion also. Correct me at will people, but I hardly believe that AO crew haven't earned what they're after.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An annual 3% wage increase - WOW thats more than CPI.
* 10 weeks paid maternity leave - This is truely extrodinary in Australia.
* One weeks paid paternity leave - again, unheard of in Australia
[QUOTE]* access to salary sacrifice arrangements for notebook computers - Thats a decent saving if you want one.[QUOTE]
A number of organisations offer discount and sacrifice arrangements for a number of items ranging from furniture to electronics to mobile phones to travel. Almost all crew I worked with or know have a notebook computer to allow communication away from home, this is another relfection of crew lifestyles and it nothing more then is currently offered to employees of other major Australian organisations such as banks and insurance companies.
* purchase a motor vehicle on a novated lease - another big save
* facilitate trip swapping - Fantastic!! Most employers would be horrified at the potential for stuffing up rosters that this allows.
For the record I've worked for a number of shift work organisations, both within and outside of the airline industry and all have allowed mutual **** swapping.
* remove the current EBA restriction of flying only 767 aircraft and flying within a 4 hour time zone - I dont see any downside here.
* assigned weekly hours from 40 to 43 - Hey, I can't remember when I last only worked 43 hours, and anything over the 40 mark isn't paid either.
* 'early start' per roster period that does not have a 24 hour break - Again, most industries only allow a 10 hour break between shift changes.
This sounds like its all to good to be true to me..... where to I sign up?
And then I read a bit further and see a lot of grumbles...... People, you need to get out more, experience the real world and you will appreciate just how good your current job is. I say this without bias but with some increduality (is that a word?) that you don't appreciate just how good you have it.
And then I read a bit further and see a lot of grumbles...... People, you need to get out more, experience the real world and you will appreciate just how good your current job is. I say this without bias but with some increduality (is that a word?) that you don't appreciate just how good you have it.
Moreover, while AO might be "low cost", they still provide a full service, at dare I say it a mugh higher quality then their QF counterparts. WHy should they be disadvantaged because of their companies cost structure?
AO/JQ/Jetconnect crew have put up with years of poor conditions, poor career progression (if any) and nothing but grief from their mainline counterparts, yet their customer service, safety and OTP have been of a high level.
Best of luck to AO crew, you deserve a lot better, it's about time QF took the time to reward the low cost divisions with some decent conditions and career opportunities.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overhere -
JQ crew are rostered to around 125 and max out at 140 hours. If we CHOOSE to select our AVLB days as overtime you could do up to 170 at an extreme. But that would be by choice.
Couldn't agree with you more on your other excellent points! Hear hear!
Here's something I rambled elsewhere...
What I said had nothing to do with Long Haul flight attendants. I was stating fact. AO cabin crew are cost efficient. What is it that made you think of Long Haul when I said that?
My point is that why should AO cabin crew be expected to do Long Haul flying on less-than-long haul pay? If it is good enough for Long Haul, then why shouldn't AO be renumerated fairly? Someone hinted that Long Haul aren't over paid... So obviously asking for more money for more arduous flying is not unreasonable? Surely Long Haul cabin crew would want colleagues in other divisions doing the similar work as them being paid a comparable rate. I know I would be peeved if another divsion in the same company was undercutting us without a fight to achieve similar rates of pay.
The original AO EBA, which Qantas agreed to (let's not forget that!), states that flying will be largely North-South and medium haul in terms of flight and duty time. Qantas agreed to these limitations. Now they want them lifted. Fine. But you can't get something for nothing.
The proposed EBA offers very little to the majority of cabin crew.
AO cabin crew have my full support and best wishes for securing a honest day's pay for an honest day's work. You should all be proud of the hard-working, great ambassadors you are to AO and QF.
I find it offensive that some members of this board feel it is OK to threaten cabin crew with the "100s of people will do your job for less" routine. We could say that about anyone's occupation. That argument is null and void and getting a little tired. To WILLINGLY accept lower wages and conditions and undercut fellow workers is unethical and un-Australian.
JQ crew are rostered to around 125 and max out at 140 hours. If we CHOOSE to select our AVLB days as overtime you could do up to 170 at an extreme. But that would be by choice.
Couldn't agree with you more on your other excellent points! Hear hear!
Here's something I rambled elsewhere...
What I said had nothing to do with Long Haul flight attendants. I was stating fact. AO cabin crew are cost efficient. What is it that made you think of Long Haul when I said that?
My point is that why should AO cabin crew be expected to do Long Haul flying on less-than-long haul pay? If it is good enough for Long Haul, then why shouldn't AO be renumerated fairly? Someone hinted that Long Haul aren't over paid... So obviously asking for more money for more arduous flying is not unreasonable? Surely Long Haul cabin crew would want colleagues in other divisions doing the similar work as them being paid a comparable rate. I know I would be peeved if another divsion in the same company was undercutting us without a fight to achieve similar rates of pay.
The original AO EBA, which Qantas agreed to (let's not forget that!), states that flying will be largely North-South and medium haul in terms of flight and duty time. Qantas agreed to these limitations. Now they want them lifted. Fine. But you can't get something for nothing.
The proposed EBA offers very little to the majority of cabin crew.
AO cabin crew have my full support and best wishes for securing a honest day's pay for an honest day's work. You should all be proud of the hard-working, great ambassadors you are to AO and QF.
I find it offensive that some members of this board feel it is OK to threaten cabin crew with the "100s of people will do your job for less" routine. We could say that about anyone's occupation. That argument is null and void and getting a little tired. To WILLINGLY accept lower wages and conditions and undercut fellow workers is unethical and un-Australian.
Last edited by ditzyboy; 15th Jan 2005 at 17:53.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Seatback 2,
Southwest are surly the best paid crew you are correct with that point. But you should also keep in mind that, the airline is probably one of the few airlines in the U.S. which is doing well enough to be able to offer their crew a decent pay. Nearly all of the Major U.S airlines have filed for chapter 11 Bankruptcy and they all in agreements with their staff for a wage cuts (probably lower that what LCC's are offering) etc. So I dont think the U.S market is a reasonable market to compare the Australian Aviation market to or in that matter to AO. If an airline is doing well then they can afford to pay thier staff. But since most are stuffed they simply can't afford to pay them. If Southwest is doing well its only because its a Low cost carrier, its satff are willing to earn less, however they still have a job that they can work for and earn an income when all the other airlines are all going bust. That is the actual reson behind why Southwest staff are the best piad in the U.S.
Regarding full service, I take that back...my mistake. However here are some facts you might be interested in:
The Australian Airlines Product
•Single class, full service leisure carrier.
•Cost savings will be achieved through a simple operating model for the airline including efficiencies with an aircraft fleet made up of one aircraft type, a single class cabin with a greater number of seats available (reducing the cost per seat), reduced cost of in-flight services, labour cost efficiencies and reduced corporate overheads.
•Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have .separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
The more complex an airlines get the more its costs them.
In regards to the pay problem...all I'am trying to say is I think 9% is a reasonable wage increase to AO crew given the fact that The entire QF group are also receiving it. And since AO is a part of the Qantas group what makes them so special?
Alright You helped them through out SARS (a major down time, the war and what have you), but dont forget Qantas staff also did the same.
What my whole arguement in my previous posting is If you are asking for anything additional, don't you think the entire QF group should also be entitled to it as well? Shouldn't you all receive the increase. What makes AO crew so special?
I agree with you when you said;
Yes, Qantas group management is profit driven, they are hungry B#####ds, but at the end of the day all businesses are profit driven and all the board gives a crap about is what goes into their pockets.
Ok so now you are saying the 5-6 day trips in Sabah are inefficient. Well if they get rid of the 5-6 then AO crew will go on strike arguing that you dont get enough rest.
I'am sure they will address the issue that you have raised one day.
Well I'am sure AO managment is dying to do that also but is probably worried from another dispute arising. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Doesnt slip times, hotels, allowances and transfers make up your work conditions? Any changes in these to reduce costs directly affects your work conditons. I dont think many AO crew will be happy with that decision. Don't you think so?
Actually if its not making any profit there is no point in running the airline just to keep its customers happy, neither will it be necessary or in that case significant for them to have access to cheaper labour because AO would no longer exist.
Southwest are surly the best paid crew you are correct with that point. But you should also keep in mind that, the airline is probably one of the few airlines in the U.S. which is doing well enough to be able to offer their crew a decent pay. Nearly all of the Major U.S airlines have filed for chapter 11 Bankruptcy and they all in agreements with their staff for a wage cuts (probably lower that what LCC's are offering) etc. So I dont think the U.S market is a reasonable market to compare the Australian Aviation market to or in that matter to AO. If an airline is doing well then they can afford to pay thier staff. But since most are stuffed they simply can't afford to pay them. If Southwest is doing well its only because its a Low cost carrier, its satff are willing to earn less, however they still have a job that they can work for and earn an income when all the other airlines are all going bust. That is the actual reson behind why Southwest staff are the best piad in the U.S.
Regarding full service, I take that back...my mistake. However here are some facts you might be interested in:
The Australian Airlines Product
•Single class, full service leisure carrier.
•Cost savings will be achieved through a simple operating model for the airline including efficiencies with an aircraft fleet made up of one aircraft type, a single class cabin with a greater number of seats available (reducing the cost per seat), reduced cost of in-flight services, labour cost efficiencies and reduced corporate overheads.
•Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have .separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
The more complex an airlines get the more its costs them.
In regards to the pay problem...all I'am trying to say is I think 9% is a reasonable wage increase to AO crew given the fact that The entire QF group are also receiving it. And since AO is a part of the Qantas group what makes them so special?
Alright You helped them through out SARS (a major down time, the war and what have you), but dont forget Qantas staff also did the same.
What my whole arguement in my previous posting is If you are asking for anything additional, don't you think the entire QF group should also be entitled to it as well? Shouldn't you all receive the increase. What makes AO crew so special?
I agree with you when you said;
I don't think it's too much to ask for QF (via AO) to give back what some may rightfully suggest is 'the fruits of their success'.
It is lazy management that constantly look to their crew's wages for savings.
It is lazy management that constantly look to their crew's wages for savings.
notice no-one has mentioned the 5-6 day trips in Sabah, where crew simply waited until the flight back to SYD, or the multi day trips to DPS.
I'am sure they will address the issue that you have raised one day.
Me thinks, and correct me at will people, that many savings could be generated from reducing slip time through a more cost-driven schedule allowing cost efficiencies to occur in many other areas of the airline (ie. hotels, allowances, transfers).
AO would VERY UNLIKELY be allowed to go bust, simply by way of the fact that QF has access to cheaper labour than it could ever possibly imagine achieving at Long Haul. Even with the demanded increases, AO is still cheaper by a mile because they are not themselves a legacy carrier with the associated historical background.
Last edited by RollzRoyce; 15th Jan 2005 at 06:22.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wedge has been applied
It took a little while but here is another clear attempt by Qantas to sink the FAAA. The poor desparate people who flocked to AO so soon after the collapse of Ansett have been well and truly sucked in, used and abused. That so many (including the FAAA) have failed to realise is that Australian Ailrines is nothing more than a vehicle by which Qantas can cut costs and bust the unions. It was easier for Qantas to start a new airline rather than sit down with the FAAA and negotiate something sensible so that QF won and the FAAA won. QF does not have the guts to take on the pilots but the next largest cost is cabin crew and they are a much easier target to strike.
To be fair to the FAAA, it must be galling to know that AO pilots did not take any salary hits when they moved across from Qantas (didn't quite a few receive an expidited rise to FO or command status as many their senior didn't want to make the move to Cairns?). So the FAAA has been sucked in and didn't have the foresight to see the current imbroglio coming. Where to next? A brawl in which the only will be and can be the Qantas group. The FAAA can't afford to ignore the fact that its members, unlike pilots, are quite dispensible and can be replaced in fairly quick time by many people who would die to take their plaxes. Some of those now calling the shots in the current dispute have been there before at another airline - also called Australian.
Speaking of Qantas, I notice that their staff are being quoted everywhere rather than the third eleven of 'would be's if they could be's' masquearading as airline managers at Australian. Are the AO 'leaders' on leave or laid low with illness like another leader in the news?
To be fair to the FAAA, it must be galling to know that AO pilots did not take any salary hits when they moved across from Qantas (didn't quite a few receive an expidited rise to FO or command status as many their senior didn't want to make the move to Cairns?). So the FAAA has been sucked in and didn't have the foresight to see the current imbroglio coming. Where to next? A brawl in which the only will be and can be the Qantas group. The FAAA can't afford to ignore the fact that its members, unlike pilots, are quite dispensible and can be replaced in fairly quick time by many people who would die to take their plaxes. Some of those now calling the shots in the current dispute have been there before at another airline - also called Australian.
Speaking of Qantas, I notice that their staff are being quoted everywhere rather than the third eleven of 'would be's if they could be's' masquearading as airline managers at Australian. Are the AO 'leaders' on leave or laid low with illness like another leader in the news?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes AO management have gone quiet since the cabin crew received the somewhat threatening letter from Mr McKirdy.
It is now all being handled by QF..
but wait....the AO website states
Except when $hit hits the fan !!!
It is now all being handled by QF..
but wait....the AO website states
Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just a lot of spin being put out by those at the top of the Qantas group. They know it's a load of bullsh!t and the world is just waking up to them but unfortunately most of the punters couldn't give a rats. Believe the spin-meisters and youll believe anything.
What a tragedy that real honesty and integrety has no place in the business world today. And those who are paid to lead and manage are nowhere to be seen or heard.
What a tragedy that real honesty and integrety has no place in the business world today. And those who are paid to lead and manage are nowhere to be seen or heard.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rollz
Southwest staff were amongst the best paid in the industry pre and post 9/11, as Southwest has continually earned a profit since it's inception into major airline status.
True they are a low cost carrier, with attached efficiencies, but so are AO in a different format. The point I was trying to make was that low wages do not necessarily equate to all low cost carriers.
So in this scenario, we have the planned 'simple operating model' being expanded at AO's insistence to include another aircraft type? And for that, the Cabin Crew should wear the cost associated with it's introduction in lieu of any incremental pay rise?
The point I'm trying to make is that even with the incremental increases and PBS introduction, AO crew would STILL be cheaper than operating Long Haul crew.
Regarding your point re: 9% across the QF spectrum, why are AO so different?
They were a start up airline that has succeeded, not least of which through the efficiencies it's largest employee group has provided. If you review a number of the EBA's in use at QF (Long Haul & Short Haul to name a few) there are Year scales 1 - 9 to reflect years of service at the carrier. The die was cast years ago - effectively, the FAAA has a right to at least question why AO crew are any different. Are their years of service not worth at least an incremental increase, when similar departments have received them in the past?
Not saying that AO are particularly special, but certainly unique in that they are a start up operation within the QF group unlike many other areas and subsidiaries of the airline, and as such their salaries do not necessarily reflect or compensate for years of service. Fact - whether or not you agree with it is your choice.
5-6 days rest following an approximate 9 hour duty is RIDICULOUS. Sure, it's lovely and special and the AO crew love it, but in reality, unsustainable.
Rest following a duty is very important, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that this be bargained away. What I am saying is that efficiencies through the better utilisation of aircraft in the scheduling can achieve greater savings at no cost to the Crew.
QF Long Haul, by example, complete an approx 15 hour duty SYD-LAX, with one nights rest, then do 15 hours LAX-SYD. I doubt AO, with it's respective rest requirements, is any different (and if so, marginally) in regards to the rest it affords its crew.
5-6 days of crew sitting in a hotel these days is a very costly exercise. Nothing to do with the crew on this one!
I'm talking about EXCESSIVE - IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS slip times. I'm not talking about reducing them BELOW those stipulated in the agreement - I'm talking about better utilisation of crew. So long as the conditions within the Agreement are adhered to, no one can complain without justifiable reason to.
Most of what I'm saying is that there are many things that AO control, such as scheduling of aircraft, etc. that have a direct corrolation to their expenditure in areas such as allowances, hotels, etc. If they scheduled the aircraft smarter, allowing the crew to spend the least amount of time away from home as possible in accordance with their agreement, they could achieve a great deal of savings without trying to screw the crew over in negotiations.
In short, I'm upset for the AO crew regarding the 'doom and gloom' picture that is getting spread in the media from management. The efficiencies AO crew provide, even if successful with the push for greater increases in pay,etc., still makes you a cost efficient workforce.
Sadly, it places you in competition with Long Haul. But we saw that one coming ages ago!
And all this at a time of ever increasing Directors and Executive fees, bonuses and other perks! Pigs at the trough anyone?
Southwest staff were amongst the best paid in the industry pre and post 9/11, as Southwest has continually earned a profit since it's inception into major airline status.
True they are a low cost carrier, with attached efficiencies, but so are AO in a different format. The point I was trying to make was that low wages do not necessarily equate to all low cost carriers.
"Regarding full service, I take that back...my mistake. However here are some facts you might be interested in:
The Australian Airlines Product
•Single class, full service leisure carrier.
•Cost savings will be achieved through a simple operating model for the airline including efficiencies with an aircraft fleet made up of one aircraft type, a single class cabin with a greater number of seats available (reducing the cost per seat), reduced cost of in-flight services, labour cost efficiencies and reduced corporate overheads.
•Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have .separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
The Australian Airlines Product
•Single class, full service leisure carrier.
•Cost savings will be achieved through a simple operating model for the airline including efficiencies with an aircraft fleet made up of one aircraft type, a single class cabin with a greater number of seats available (reducing the cost per seat), reduced cost of in-flight services, labour cost efficiencies and reduced corporate overheads.
•Wholly-owned by Qantas Airways Limited, Australian will have .separate management and will operate independently of Qantas.
The point I'm trying to make is that even with the incremental increases and PBS introduction, AO crew would STILL be cheaper than operating Long Haul crew.
Regarding your point re: 9% across the QF spectrum, why are AO so different?
They were a start up airline that has succeeded, not least of which through the efficiencies it's largest employee group has provided. If you review a number of the EBA's in use at QF (Long Haul & Short Haul to name a few) there are Year scales 1 - 9 to reflect years of service at the carrier. The die was cast years ago - effectively, the FAAA has a right to at least question why AO crew are any different. Are their years of service not worth at least an incremental increase, when similar departments have received them in the past?
Not saying that AO are particularly special, but certainly unique in that they are a start up operation within the QF group unlike many other areas and subsidiaries of the airline, and as such their salaries do not necessarily reflect or compensate for years of service. Fact - whether or not you agree with it is your choice.
"Ok so now you are saying the 5-6 day trips in Sabah are inefficient. Well if they get rid of the 5-6 then AO crew will go on strike arguing that you dont get enough rest.
I'am sure they will address the issue that you have raised one day.
I'am sure they will address the issue that you have raised one day.
Rest following a duty is very important, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that this be bargained away. What I am saying is that efficiencies through the better utilisation of aircraft in the scheduling can achieve greater savings at no cost to the Crew.
QF Long Haul, by example, complete an approx 15 hour duty SYD-LAX, with one nights rest, then do 15 hours LAX-SYD. I doubt AO, with it's respective rest requirements, is any different (and if so, marginally) in regards to the rest it affords its crew.
5-6 days of crew sitting in a hotel these days is a very costly exercise. Nothing to do with the crew on this one!
"Well I'am sure AO managment is dying to do that also but is probably worried from another dispute arising. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Doesnt slip times, hotels, allowances and transfers make up your work conditions? Any changes in these to reduce costs directly affects your work conditons. I dont think many AO crew will be happy with that decision. Don't you think so?
Most of what I'm saying is that there are many things that AO control, such as scheduling of aircraft, etc. that have a direct corrolation to their expenditure in areas such as allowances, hotels, etc. If they scheduled the aircraft smarter, allowing the crew to spend the least amount of time away from home as possible in accordance with their agreement, they could achieve a great deal of savings without trying to screw the crew over in negotiations.
In short, I'm upset for the AO crew regarding the 'doom and gloom' picture that is getting spread in the media from management. The efficiencies AO crew provide, even if successful with the push for greater increases in pay,etc., still makes you a cost efficient workforce.
Sadly, it places you in competition with Long Haul. But we saw that one coming ages ago!
And all this at a time of ever increasing Directors and Executive fees, bonuses and other perks! Pigs at the trough anyone?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Perth, AUS
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it somewhat refreshing that this debate has not turned childlike and petty. The fact that people disagree over something is a great thing about a democracy, and it appears that everyone here is being mature about it and if they take issue about someone elses opinion, they attack the opinion, not the person!
It makes for a refreshing change on here!
My opinion (not that it is worth the bandwidth it occupies) is that the AO staff had best get the changes they are wanting in paper, in a EBA, and not have vauge items like
Where that is obviously open to misuse once the EBA is ratified. "Yes we did consider it, so and we decided not to increase it"
For those of us on the outside, it is difficult to fully understand the pressures and stresses that crew experience. It is not our place to pass judgement in an area where we have no experience about the role of an AO cabin crew member, or what they have to complain about. I will leave that to the people at the coal face, those who will be affected by any changes.
So back to my original intent for hitting the "Post Reply" button, keep up this healthy debate, and please lets not allow this to descend into primitive namecalling and petty personal squabbles! If you feel the desire to do this, there is an excellent rather funny forum called Jet Blast, where you can blow your stack with the best of them!
JB
It makes for a refreshing change on here!
My opinion (not that it is worth the bandwidth it occupies) is that the AO staff had best get the changes they are wanting in paper, in a EBA, and not have vauge items like
If Australian Airlines ever did consider flying to
Europe, we would also consider whether additional home rest was required.
Europe, we would also consider whether additional home rest was required.
For those of us on the outside, it is difficult to fully understand the pressures and stresses that crew experience. It is not our place to pass judgement in an area where we have no experience about the role of an AO cabin crew member, or what they have to complain about. I will leave that to the people at the coal face, those who will be affected by any changes.
So back to my original intent for hitting the "Post Reply" button, keep up this healthy debate, and please lets not allow this to descend into primitive namecalling and petty personal squabbles! If you feel the desire to do this, there is an excellent rather funny forum called Jet Blast, where you can blow your stack with the best of them!
JB
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB,
I think it is very important to be able to respect others opinions without actually abusing them.
It is also good to look at a story from both sides. I just wanted to shed a light on the fact that why AO crew shouldnt complain, Mr Seatback 2 stated why he isn't happy. There are always two sides to any story and one isnt always necessarily always the correct one.
I think its important to put things into perspective from both the managements point of view and the staffs, and then weigh things out.
If staff can actaully sit down and undertsand why AO are doing what they are then I'am sure they will understand things alot better. I think there is a communication problem between the two parties.
Now back to the topic;
I never said anything about whether it was before or after any particular event. Most U.S airlines were in financial trouble before SARS and 9/11 due to bad mangement. Southwest was doing well back then and its still doing well today.
Also in regards to the the crew slips in Sabah, as I said they would probably resolve that issue in the near future but at this stage they dont have all the resources, let alone suffcient number of aircraft, enough demand from the travelling public to address the problem. If they were to increase the frequency of flights to Sabah just in order to reduce the number days of crew slips and increase aircraft utilisation then you are going to saturate the total market to Sabah into peanuts, the load factors on the flights would probably be around 40% (maybe less). Unless AO utilise smaller aircraft and then there is absolutely no point in serving Sabah, profitably. Its probably cheaper to operate a single flight to Sabah once a week rather than operating say maybe 2 737's (not that they have such a/c type in their fleet) but this is a hypothetical. This method was probably the one that brings the most profit to the airline and that iswhy it is in place right now.
Yes it is indeed costly but increasing aircraft utilisation where their isn't enough demand just so crew slip times can be reduced in order to bring efficiencies is a much more costly exercise! Dont' you think??
I'am sure AO have weighed out the benefits before making thier decisions and found it viable for crew to remain in Sabah for 5 days rather than increasing the frequency of flight to reduce crew slip hours. Then you have the added costs of operating an almost empty aircraft, and I'am sure that would cost AO much more than their hotel rooms for a crew of 9 -11 for 5 days.
Look, either way I think AO is still in their teething stages and these kind of problems will continue to arise. At the moment they dont have suffiecint resources to address all the problems, but I'am sure if you give it some time everything will settle and you will hopefully get a good deal. After all if you take care of your staff the business will take care of itself.
I think it is very important to be able to respect others opinions without actually abusing them.
It is also good to look at a story from both sides. I just wanted to shed a light on the fact that why AO crew shouldnt complain, Mr Seatback 2 stated why he isn't happy. There are always two sides to any story and one isnt always necessarily always the correct one.
I think its important to put things into perspective from both the managements point of view and the staffs, and then weigh things out.
If staff can actaully sit down and undertsand why AO are doing what they are then I'am sure they will understand things alot better. I think there is a communication problem between the two parties.
Now back to the topic;
Southwest staff were amongst the best paid in the industry pre and post 9/11, as Southwest has continually earned a profit since it's inception into major airline status.
Also in regards to the the crew slips in Sabah, as I said they would probably resolve that issue in the near future but at this stage they dont have all the resources, let alone suffcient number of aircraft, enough demand from the travelling public to address the problem. If they were to increase the frequency of flights to Sabah just in order to reduce the number days of crew slips and increase aircraft utilisation then you are going to saturate the total market to Sabah into peanuts, the load factors on the flights would probably be around 40% (maybe less). Unless AO utilise smaller aircraft and then there is absolutely no point in serving Sabah, profitably. Its probably cheaper to operate a single flight to Sabah once a week rather than operating say maybe 2 737's (not that they have such a/c type in their fleet) but this is a hypothetical. This method was probably the one that brings the most profit to the airline and that iswhy it is in place right now.
5-6 days of crew sitting in a hotel these days is a very costly exercise. Nothing to do with the crew on this one!
I'am sure AO have weighed out the benefits before making thier decisions and found it viable for crew to remain in Sabah for 5 days rather than increasing the frequency of flight to reduce crew slip hours. Then you have the added costs of operating an almost empty aircraft, and I'am sure that would cost AO much more than their hotel rooms for a crew of 9 -11 for 5 days.
Look, either way I think AO is still in their teething stages and these kind of problems will continue to arise. At the moment they dont have suffiecint resources to address all the problems, but I'am sure if you give it some time everything will settle and you will hopefully get a good deal. After all if you take care of your staff the business will take care of itself.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Seatback 2
Just a small point...
Cost driven schedules tend to lose money.
It's better for schedules to be Market driven.. i.e. fly when there are passengers to carry.
It's best if the schedule is a combination of both - to make a profit.
...So the 5 or 6 days crew rest in Sabbah may be cheaper than operating an additional flight for nil passengers... and let's face if you operated an extra flight (to cut down layover/slip time) there is still the new crew's hotel/transfer/allowances to be paid - as well as the cost of the flight... and no new passengers to help pay for it.
Then there is the overall utilisation/maintenance of the aircraft to take into account. It's not easy.
RollzRoyce
True... look after the staff and the staff look after the job. But it doesn't always mean money when you look after staff. There are many ways of doing it.
Cheers
Just a small point...
Cost driven schedules tend to lose money.
It's better for schedules to be Market driven.. i.e. fly when there are passengers to carry.
It's best if the schedule is a combination of both - to make a profit.
...So the 5 or 6 days crew rest in Sabbah may be cheaper than operating an additional flight for nil passengers... and let's face if you operated an extra flight (to cut down layover/slip time) there is still the new crew's hotel/transfer/allowances to be paid - as well as the cost of the flight... and no new passengers to help pay for it.
Then there is the overall utilisation/maintenance of the aircraft to take into account. It's not easy.
RollzRoyce
True... look after the staff and the staff look after the job. But it doesn't always mean money when you look after staff. There are many ways of doing it.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Animal Club & Rollz,
All valid points (re: market forces, etc), but why should the crew, in respect to reducing costs, etc., bear the brunt of cost reductions when there are clearly areas where AO can reduce it's costs? Yes, there are some aspects where AO is between a rock and a hard place, in regards to aircraft utilisation, resources, etc. I have no disagreement with that. What I disagree with is the singular 'screw the crew' approach many entities within QF take towards their Cabin Crew, without looking to the business itself for overall efficiencies.
I'd be interested to know what conditions and pay the AO pilots (who transferred from QF) managed to maintain. Not having a dig or anything - simply curious to see what approach has been taken with them. If it was a start up agreement with the Cabin Crew, was it the same for the pilots?
I take your point re: cost driven schedules losing money. But the whole approach to this EBA negotiation has been (like any other I would imagine) cost driven itself. Bit lazy to take, take, take from employees and not give anything in return. Bargaining is a two way street - not a management wish list.
Whilst I don't envy AO's position (in regards to building up demand on Sabah route, etc. so that one day it can be cost effective), the crew - as with any other group - shouldn't have to be put into a position where they are required to sit back and give freely of their agreement without receiving anything tangible in return.
What AO want from their crew is to essentially operate them like Long Haul crew at far cheaper rates, with it's associated start up agreement efficiencies. If the FAAA were REALLY wanting to be unreasonable, they might want to insist on the many parameters that the Long Haul EBA has being inserted into the AO one.
As we have seen, and only in conjunction with the efficiencies AO want from the crew, the FAAA are simply seeking:
a) Slightly improved remuneration (in line with industry standards here and overseas for crew performing Long Haul flying, and operating on multi-aircraft types); and
b) A Bidding System where crew can tailor their roster to suit their lifestyle.
Not unreasonable in my view - but then again, that's just it - my view. Everyone else can please themselves!
All valid points (re: market forces, etc), but why should the crew, in respect to reducing costs, etc., bear the brunt of cost reductions when there are clearly areas where AO can reduce it's costs? Yes, there are some aspects where AO is between a rock and a hard place, in regards to aircraft utilisation, resources, etc. I have no disagreement with that. What I disagree with is the singular 'screw the crew' approach many entities within QF take towards their Cabin Crew, without looking to the business itself for overall efficiencies.
I'd be interested to know what conditions and pay the AO pilots (who transferred from QF) managed to maintain. Not having a dig or anything - simply curious to see what approach has been taken with them. If it was a start up agreement with the Cabin Crew, was it the same for the pilots?
I take your point re: cost driven schedules losing money. But the whole approach to this EBA negotiation has been (like any other I would imagine) cost driven itself. Bit lazy to take, take, take from employees and not give anything in return. Bargaining is a two way street - not a management wish list.
Whilst I don't envy AO's position (in regards to building up demand on Sabah route, etc. so that one day it can be cost effective), the crew - as with any other group - shouldn't have to be put into a position where they are required to sit back and give freely of their agreement without receiving anything tangible in return.
What AO want from their crew is to essentially operate them like Long Haul crew at far cheaper rates, with it's associated start up agreement efficiencies. If the FAAA were REALLY wanting to be unreasonable, they might want to insist on the many parameters that the Long Haul EBA has being inserted into the AO one.
As we have seen, and only in conjunction with the efficiencies AO want from the crew, the FAAA are simply seeking:
a) Slightly improved remuneration (in line with industry standards here and overseas for crew performing Long Haul flying, and operating on multi-aircraft types); and
b) A Bidding System where crew can tailor their roster to suit their lifestyle.
Not unreasonable in my view - but then again, that's just it - my view. Everyone else can please themselves!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots are not stupid as they are all well versed in the Qantas School of Greed. My belief is that when AO started, all of the pilots wre transferred from Qantas longhaul with 767 endorsements. If Qantas transferred 4 (now 5) 767's to AO without transfrerring crew, there would have been many pilot redundancies at Qantas. This did not happen. My mail is that the pilot group did not make any financial sacrifices as a result of moving to Australian. I am told that many jumped the seniority queue with AIPA's approval and received an accelarated promotion to make up the numbers. It doesn't matter how it is dressed up, the pilots have not taken a hit, as have Cabin Crew. Any Australian pilots care to take us up on this? It was probably considered "too hard" to screw the pilots.
There have been suggestions of a bidding system for cabin crew. On what preferential basis would the bidding be made? Any Australian pilots care to take us up on this?
There have been suggestions of a bidding system for cabin crew. On what preferential basis would the bidding be made? Any Australian pilots care to take us up on this?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys ..I hate to say this but your all starting to sound like the bitter minority at Qantas Long Haul!! The company will do what they want !! They will get there additional hours of flying and nobody can do anything!! Remember the cabin crew applied to a low cost full lesuire airline .. If they want the conditions at Qantas Long haul maybe they should have applied there!! Take what AO for what it is ! Low cost labour Airline!! If you think its bad here maybe you should have a chat to some of the Virgin cabin crew about there conditions !! And yes they still dont winge as much as you guys do!! Nobody has got you chained to the gally !! We all have choices !! Mr Seatback 2 you cant compare the pilots to cabin crew !! They have years of training and cabin crew have ahh let me see 4-6 weeks!! Its like chalk and cheese!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QRF5,
Why would any of us want to work at L/H ? Most of the AO crew are ex EK, QF S/H and L/H, QantasLink and Virgin/Jetstar. Been there done that. We are not a whinging bunch, just upset at what is being offered to us in this EBA.
And...even if we did want to work for L/H what jobs are going ? Would you be happy for us to be strikebreakers ?
Just remember AO crew refused to do any L/H flying during the recent threat by L/H crew to strike - we supported you even though we did not work for L/H and understand your full story...so howz about you support us.
It seems to me QFR5 that you are one of the new s/h crew living in a "MAM" dream world. Congratulations for being so positive and happy about your new "casual"job but when you finally start getting sick of QF after a few years of constant doom and gloom let see how your attitude changes towards the company - not the actual position of flight attendant itself.
BTW - having read a few of your posts you seem to be the one whinging ! every post is a dig at QF crew for voicing their opinion.
Why would any of us want to work at L/H ? Most of the AO crew are ex EK, QF S/H and L/H, QantasLink and Virgin/Jetstar. Been there done that. We are not a whinging bunch, just upset at what is being offered to us in this EBA.
And...even if we did want to work for L/H what jobs are going ? Would you be happy for us to be strikebreakers ?
Just remember AO crew refused to do any L/H flying during the recent threat by L/H crew to strike - we supported you even though we did not work for L/H and understand your full story...so howz about you support us.
It seems to me QFR5 that you are one of the new s/h crew living in a "MAM" dream world. Congratulations for being so positive and happy about your new "casual"job but when you finally start getting sick of QF after a few years of constant doom and gloom let see how your attitude changes towards the company - not the actual position of flight attendant itself.
BTW - having read a few of your posts you seem to be the one whinging ! every post is a dig at QF crew for voicing their opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The company will do what they want !! They will get there additional hours of flying and nobody can do anything!!"
We enjoy the conditions we have all worked so hard for across the airlines in Australia because crew have stood up and fought long and hard for them.
" Remember the cabin crew applied to a low cost full lesuire airline .. If they want the conditions at Qantas Long haul maybe they should have applied there!!"
The AO Cabin Crew are more than aware of their low-cost model. But low costs should not always mean low wages.
"If you think its bad here maybe you should have a chat to some of the Virgin cabin crew about there conditions !! And yes they still dont winge as much as you guys do!!"
Correction - the DJ guys do whinge a great deal. You just don't see them on here as often. Probably to do with the fact the large majority are never home to use a computer (12 overnights a month will do that to you).
"Mr Seatback 2 you cant compare the pilots to cabin crew !! They have years of training and cabin crew have ahh let me see 4-6 weeks!! Its like chalk and cheese!!"
Jetstar pilots, who similarly are also part of the QF Group and work for a low cost airline, are amongst the lowest paid pilots in the country for the type of aircraft they fly (in fact, they're cheaper than Virgin). This is primarily because we, at Jetstar, are a LOW COST CARRIER.
If it's applied at Jetstar, one may well argue (for the sake of AO crew) why AO pilots are not receiving lower wages like their cabin crew? It has nothing to do with training, and everything to do with consistency. Or is it simply the case that QF wouldn't dare try anything with the pilot group, but are more than happy to screw the Cabin Crew over?
You're entitled to your opinion QFR5, but so are the majority of AO crew who are unhappy with the approach taken by management of late.
Maybe one day, when you're in the same position as they are, you will understand.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonique......Why becouse I am not bitter I am a short haul mam Causual!! well how wrong you are !! I am a long haul cabin crew member working for QF close to 10 years !! Surprise surprise !! And I still havent adopted your bitter attitude !!
If you read the start of my thread all I am saying is I know QF managment need change hence further 7000 jobs O/S etc.. They already know the plan and they will get there with your support or without!! Qantas and its subsidarys are always changing to keep up to date witht he cost structure and product !! AO will get there eba through !!Remember you go out on strike you think AO will not be flying !! There are a lot of people trained to do what you do within Qantas just in case there are strikes !! So its not going to matter !! Maybe if its all getting that bad and the conditions are going to be that bad its time to go SONIQUE !!
Mr Seatback 2 !! I knoe your voicing your opinion and that conditions are being eroded ..But thats how it is not just at Qantas but at insurance company banks etc!! We are not that special!! Its sad but its take it or leave it!! As I mentioned before nobody is changed to the gally and yes there are lots of young enthusiastic people waiting to work as crew who would be happy with the conditions!!!
If you read the start of my thread all I am saying is I know QF managment need change hence further 7000 jobs O/S etc.. They already know the plan and they will get there with your support or without!! Qantas and its subsidarys are always changing to keep up to date witht he cost structure and product !! AO will get there eba through !!Remember you go out on strike you think AO will not be flying !! There are a lot of people trained to do what you do within Qantas just in case there are strikes !! So its not going to matter !! Maybe if its all getting that bad and the conditions are going to be that bad its time to go SONIQUE !!
Mr Seatback 2 !! I knoe your voicing your opinion and that conditions are being eroded ..But thats how it is not just at Qantas but at insurance company banks etc!! We are not that special!! Its sad but its take it or leave it!! As I mentioned before nobody is changed to the gally and yes there are lots of young enthusiastic people waiting to work as crew who would be happy with the conditions!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere about 12k's
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt you will find many, if any, Qantas crew prepared to act as strikebreakers should AO crew go on strike. We all HATE the current 'visiting' management team as much as they do.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
r3please.......
I didnt mean other crew going to work in your place if you had to go on strike ! I didnt think that was an option.. What I meant I know for a FACT that there are people trainied internaly ready to go at a drop of a pin with managment to cover your flying !! So going on strike wouldnt effect the company at all!! Something to think about!! Like in long haul if the majority decided to take strike action there were other people waiting in the wings to take over the flying until the dispute was over !!
I didnt mean other crew going to work in your place if you had to go on strike ! I didnt think that was an option.. What I meant I know for a FACT that there are people trainied internaly ready to go at a drop of a pin with managment to cover your flying !! So going on strike wouldnt effect the company at all!! Something to think about!! Like in long haul if the majority decided to take strike action there were other people waiting in the wings to take over the flying until the dispute was over !!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere about 12k's
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am QF long haul crew QFR5 so know all about the past 6 months threatened industrial action.
In that case though we would have grounded many aircraft. The company needs around 300 crew per day to keep the current schedule going. They had less than 1000 ground people trained to do our flying should we have gone on strike.
In my opinion we should have gone on strike, would have taken 3 days or so to affect the company but it would have been worth it. Instead crew said yes to a substandard EBA which they will regret over the next few years.
In that case though we would have grounded many aircraft. The company needs around 300 crew per day to keep the current schedule going. They had less than 1000 ground people trained to do our flying should we have gone on strike.
In my opinion we should have gone on strike, would have taken 3 days or so to affect the company but it would have been worth it. Instead crew said yes to a substandard EBA which they will regret over the next few years.