QF LHR Base (merged)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it is that the FAAA don't really seem to be achieving anything. Hence my opinion re their irrelevance.
Having said that, the only reason I can see for someone defending them would be because they are 'one of them'!
And if that said one is not 'one of them', why does that one not help the very way he/she says:
We wait for the constructive ideas.................
Having said that, the only reason I can see for someone defending them would be because they are 'one of them'!
And if that said one is not 'one of them', why does that one not help the very way he/she says:
No swipe intended,just come up with some constructive ideas instead of criticism
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and No
Yes I WAS on the union executive...8years ago.I have no complaints with their handling of current circumstances.YOU are the one complaining.So instead of whinging come up with some positive alternatives.
If I was still on the union executive you would be asked to rescind your membership.
If I was still on the union executive you would be asked to rescind your membership.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note to self...
"Ignore comments from sludge dwellers".
Oxford:-
sludge
• noun 1 thick, soft, wet mud or a similar viscous mixture. 2 dirty oil or industrial waste. 3 a muddy shade of brown or green.
Hmmmm.... mud
"Ignore comments from sludge dwellers".
Oxford:-
sludge
• noun 1 thick, soft, wet mud or a similar viscous mixture. 2 dirty oil or industrial waste. 3 a muddy shade of brown or green.
Hmmmm.... mud
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Funny...
Now you resort to desultory name calling.You were obviously not employed for your sense of humour.You two are in the minority.The FAAA can not act unilaterally but only with the support of the membership ie. voting.EBAs are endorsed(or not) by the membership.It was not 200 FAAA members who chose the LHR base it was 75...the rest are locals some Kiwis,some who just wanted to have a job flying at any cost.
Both whingers with no ideas.Where were you when all this was happening?We didn`t hear your voices then,but we hear your complaining now.You two are just one person with schizophrenia.
If the name calling and whinging brightens your miserable little lives keep it up it matters not one jot to me.While you two little dogs bark the aviation wagon rolls on.
Both whingers with no ideas.Where were you when all this was happening?We didn`t hear your voices then,but we hear your complaining now.You two are just one person with schizophrenia.
If the name calling and whinging brightens your miserable little lives keep it up it matters not one jot to me.While you two little dogs bark the aviation wagon rolls on.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, and we were doing so well...
For a short, fabulous, shining moment there, the issues were being discussed without all the silly name calling and rock throwing. Now, here we go again.
As my esteemed co-mod flyblue likes to say "play the ball, not the player". She'd also probably say "please" because she's nice. I'm not
For a short, fabulous, shining moment there, the issues were being discussed without all the silly name calling and rock throwing. Now, here we go again.
As my esteemed co-mod flyblue likes to say "play the ball, not the player". She'd also probably say "please" because she's nice. I'm not
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OH DEAR
HI all,
It would seem,there are a lot of different of opinions here.
some of them informed,a lot of them uninformed.
some of the opinions it would seem depend on age or length of service in q.and then again on youth or inexperience.
we can all learn from each other,but are we looking at each other or looking at the common enemy.
many a general has used his troops as cannon fodder to please his superiors and gain promotion.its nothing new.
only time OR plans by the troops change the generals mind or get him/her removed is it possible, but it needs cohesion,not devision.
we cannot change what has happened.
but we can change what happens next.
i suggest the problems with CC are caused by their immediate management,and their instructions come from their management,and their instructions come from senior management and so on up to GD and MD
if you had the chance of saving 18 mill wouldnt you jump at it.
BUT,if in the mean time you loose 100 mill of business,its not such a good deal is it.
that is essentially the senario.
it has happened,we are loosing wages and conditions,the lhr contract pays around L12500 for a f/a p/a when on an international comparison basis it should be around L34000,based on $60,000 aud f/a in syd
we need to fight back not fight
attacks on the FAAA are without substance.i say to anyone out there if you want to attack the faaa,call them and do it,cos as far as i know, and i do ring,THEY ARE PUSHING IT UP HILL,with q negociations.
i have been in q negociations and i can tell you they ALWAYS play HARDBALL. come in and give it a try if you think it is a PUSHOVER.
so lets fight the common enemy .................not each other
HAKUNA MATATA
It would seem,there are a lot of different of opinions here.
some of them informed,a lot of them uninformed.
some of the opinions it would seem depend on age or length of service in q.and then again on youth or inexperience.
we can all learn from each other,but are we looking at each other or looking at the common enemy.
many a general has used his troops as cannon fodder to please his superiors and gain promotion.its nothing new.
only time OR plans by the troops change the generals mind or get him/her removed is it possible, but it needs cohesion,not devision.
we cannot change what has happened.
but we can change what happens next.
i suggest the problems with CC are caused by their immediate management,and their instructions come from their management,and their instructions come from senior management and so on up to GD and MD
if you had the chance of saving 18 mill wouldnt you jump at it.
BUT,if in the mean time you loose 100 mill of business,its not such a good deal is it.
that is essentially the senario.
it has happened,we are loosing wages and conditions,the lhr contract pays around L12500 for a f/a p/a when on an international comparison basis it should be around L34000,based on $60,000 aud f/a in syd
we need to fight back not fight
attacks on the FAAA are without substance.i say to anyone out there if you want to attack the faaa,call them and do it,cos as far as i know, and i do ring,THEY ARE PUSHING IT UP HILL,with q negociations.
i have been in q negociations and i can tell you they ALWAYS play HARDBALL. come in and give it a try if you think it is a PUSHOVER.
so lets fight the common enemy .................not each other
HAKUNA MATATA
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Yellow Flag for... well I'm not sure what for, but thanks anyhow.
Agree with some of your comments but in relation to playing hardball I'm afraid that's the way it is.
If the FAAA are not capable of playing on the same piece of turf then they need to get some expert skilled people, of comparable calibre that QF uses, to do their battling for them.
There's no excuse for a union claiming to be modern saying "Oh well it's the best we could do". Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
FAAA union officials are flight attendants who are going up against hardened industrial relations law practitioners. They go in with the best intentions but how do you compete against QF when they front up with a negotiator who was previously an IR commissioner and still bears the title of QC. FAAA needs to get bigger guns and the fees that members pay should be used for that very purpose.
I have been criticised for complaining without offering suggestions so I will end this post with a suggestion.
Most long haul crew are peeved at QF forcing the taking of long service leave to reduce QF's leave liability and subsequently make the bottom line look a bit better.
And it seems that by all accounts the law is on QF's side.
My suggestion is for the FAAA to begin lobbying the government to improve corporate laws so that any accumulated entitlements (like long service leave) are paid to a trust account.
The corporation can enjoy the interest from the account but can't touch the cash.
The value in this is two fold:
1. There is no need for the corporation to force its employees to take the leave and relieve the liability because there isn't one.
2. The employees entitlements are protected should the corporation go broke.
Note that I believe annual leave is about rest and recreation and should be taken as prescribed. Long service leave is about a bonus for years of service (loyalty).
Agree with some of your comments but in relation to playing hardball I'm afraid that's the way it is.
If the FAAA are not capable of playing on the same piece of turf then they need to get some expert skilled people, of comparable calibre that QF uses, to do their battling for them.
There's no excuse for a union claiming to be modern saying "Oh well it's the best we could do". Sorry but that doesn't cut it.
FAAA union officials are flight attendants who are going up against hardened industrial relations law practitioners. They go in with the best intentions but how do you compete against QF when they front up with a negotiator who was previously an IR commissioner and still bears the title of QC. FAAA needs to get bigger guns and the fees that members pay should be used for that very purpose.
I have been criticised for complaining without offering suggestions so I will end this post with a suggestion.
Most long haul crew are peeved at QF forcing the taking of long service leave to reduce QF's leave liability and subsequently make the bottom line look a bit better.
And it seems that by all accounts the law is on QF's side.
My suggestion is for the FAAA to begin lobbying the government to improve corporate laws so that any accumulated entitlements (like long service leave) are paid to a trust account.
The corporation can enjoy the interest from the account but can't touch the cash.
The value in this is two fold:
1. There is no need for the corporation to force its employees to take the leave and relieve the liability because there isn't one.
2. The employees entitlements are protected should the corporation go broke.
Note that I believe annual leave is about rest and recreation and should be taken as prescribed. Long service leave is about a bonus for years of service (loyalty).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFCSM.
"My suggestion is for the FAAA to begin lobbying the government to improve corporate laws so that any accumulated entitlements (like long service leave) are paid to a trust account."
You dont mean the current Federal government surely.
"My suggestion is for the FAAA to begin lobbying the government to improve corporate laws so that any accumulated entitlements (like long service leave) are paid to a trust account."
You dont mean the current Federal government surely.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
once again
thank you qfcsm,i think.
however,and i dont want to enter into banter,your appreciation of the facts seems a little uninformed.
we USED to be able to do the things you may suggest.
HOWEVER,have you seen the changes in the industrial relations agreement,or were you under a rock.
the LIBERAL party by its very nature design things for their 'big end of town' mates.
hence when they get control of the senate this year,we will loose another hard earned RIGHT,to redundancy payment,all we will get is 'SEE YA' and a bit of lsl.(if we have any left)all that hard work for nothing.
BIG BROTHER.your are probably too you young to remember the film or the proficy.might just come true.
the major enemy is GD and LITTLE JONNY.
costello,coming,TOMORROW, will be WORSE.
if you have a grab on all these facts,then go to the FAAA an offer your services.
however,and i dont want to enter into banter,your appreciation of the facts seems a little uninformed.
we USED to be able to do the things you may suggest.
HOWEVER,have you seen the changes in the industrial relations agreement,or were you under a rock.
the LIBERAL party by its very nature design things for their 'big end of town' mates.
hence when they get control of the senate this year,we will loose another hard earned RIGHT,to redundancy payment,all we will get is 'SEE YA' and a bit of lsl.(if we have any left)all that hard work for nothing.
BIG BROTHER.your are probably too you young to remember the film or the proficy.might just come true.
the major enemy is GD and LITTLE JONNY.
costello,coming,TOMORROW, will be WORSE.
if you have a grab on all these facts,then go to the FAAA an offer your services.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Flag
YellowFlag, thanks for supporting my point of view. You said exactly what I expect to hear from the current FAAA - "It's all too hard. The end is near!"
No I don't live under a rock and I am fully aware of the political environment we live in and that is precisely why I say that it's not enough to have a group of flight attendants fronting up to QF to negotiate for conditions etc.
The FAAA have to start looking for high-end industrial muscle. And I mean no disrespect to current industrial officers but clearly they are not up to the task any more. You get what you pay for and the FAAA are paying average wages for average staff.
You’ve heard the saying that builders have the worst houses, well unions are generally the worst employers.
So I say that yes times are tough in negotiations so the FAAA need to get tough people who are strategically smart and know the landscape.
No I don't live under a rock and I am fully aware of the political environment we live in and that is precisely why I say that it's not enough to have a group of flight attendants fronting up to QF to negotiate for conditions etc.
The FAAA have to start looking for high-end industrial muscle. And I mean no disrespect to current industrial officers but clearly they are not up to the task any more. You get what you pay for and the FAAA are paying average wages for average staff.
You’ve heard the saying that builders have the worst houses, well unions are generally the worst employers.
So I say that yes times are tough in negotiations so the FAAA need to get tough people who are strategically smart and know the landscape.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qfcsm,
you,really didnt say anything,did you.
just avoided the issues.
if you think there is a simple solution,get involved with the faaa,manage the finances and hire the people YOU think we should have.
see simple.
you,really didnt say anything,did you.
just avoided the issues.
if you think there is a simple solution,get involved with the faaa,manage the finances and hire the people YOU think we should have.
see simple.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a pointless debate.
I don't want to get involved and as I explained I don't believe that flight attendants are capable of negotiating at the level that QF are playing at and I certainly did not say nor believe there is a simple solution.
And I have made two suggestions but still I am accussed of "saying nothing".
My thought on protecting crew conditions is that the FAAA should employ strategic, industrial muscle. And be prepared to pay for it.
Clearly there are no other answers from this forum and if it is true that some of the posts are from FAAA officials then there are no answers there either.
And if that is saying nothing then nothing is what I will say!
Simple eh!
I don't want to get involved and as I explained I don't believe that flight attendants are capable of negotiating at the level that QF are playing at and I certainly did not say nor believe there is a simple solution.
And I have made two suggestions but still I am accussed of "saying nothing".
My thought on protecting crew conditions is that the FAAA should employ strategic, industrial muscle. And be prepared to pay for it.
Clearly there are no other answers from this forum and if it is true that some of the posts are from FAAA officials then there are no answers there either.
And if that is saying nothing then nothing is what I will say!
Simple eh!
Last edited by qfcsm; 2nd May 2005 at 21:58.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Diversion
Aircraft approaches LHR to commence descent.Captain receives a call from CSM...we cannot land we are still doing the meal service.Approach cancelled and aircraft circles up around Manchester for an hour as crew finish service and prepare cabin.
Lack of experience meant that this LHR based crew could not even develop a time line.
This was a breakfast service that was begun too late by the onboard managers ,who,as stated, have little concept of time management
Lack of experience meant that this LHR based crew could not even develop a time line.
This was a breakfast service that was begun too late by the onboard managers ,who,as stated, have little concept of time management
Last edited by Captain.Q; 5th May 2005 at 08:54.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this supposed diversion fact? If so what are the details, ie. flight no, date etc? Or is it just another figmented rumour designed to discredit people.
When you have a close relative up in LHR enjoying the base, there because they love flying and they get a permanent gig at the end of it (after being on a fixed contract) you get really sick of all this crap being invented on this forum.
Fact is the people up there are mostly great, and they are making the most of the situation. Most are actually loving living in London. However, people calling them scabs etc, and trying to make out that they are really incompetent, is really putting certain groups of people offside with many in the company.
When you have a close relative up in LHR enjoying the base, there because they love flying and they get a permanent gig at the end of it (after being on a fixed contract) you get really sick of all this crap being invented on this forum.
Fact is the people up there are mostly great, and they are making the most of the situation. Most are actually loving living in London. However, people calling them scabs etc, and trying to make out that they are really incompetent, is really putting certain groups of people offside with many in the company.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "fact" is they were employed as scabs on fixed term contracts for the very purpose of working should long haul crew take industrial action. So what if they are now in LHR and come back to a permanent position in long haul (if its still here in 2 years) the fact of the matter is they are/were a scab.
Maybe they are competent but the only FACTUAL information on the fixed term crew now up in LHR is the above.
Maybe they are competent but the only FACTUAL information on the fixed term crew now up in LHR is the above.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously - I have my doubts about the above service. I think you could still complete a service on a full 747-400 from SIN - LHR with 4 flight attendants!!!!
A full 747 from SYD to MEL would sound more believable.....
Not that I know anyone who took up a position with QF during the EBA negotiations, and then on to L/H, but can we refrain from calling them scabs it really is getting tiring!
Cheers
RaverFlaver
A full 747 from SYD to MEL would sound more believable.....
Not that I know anyone who took up a position with QF during the EBA negotiations, and then on to L/H, but can we refrain from calling them scabs it really is getting tiring!
Cheers
RaverFlaver