Qantas New York Services
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sector looks like being achievable at 14.35 or thereabouts ONLY if everything goes to plan.
Delays ex LAX[the norm] and northern hemisphere winters JFK will, as mentioned before see this routinely blow out to 17 and more.
It stinks and is a MAJOR sell out especially given that we would be the ONLY carrier with cabin crew who do it.
U.S. cabin crew dont do it.
WTF should we?
Oh thats right.............it will further help to line the pockets of the scum who run this company.
Jettlager
Delays ex LAX[the norm] and northern hemisphere winters JFK will, as mentioned before see this routinely blow out to 17 and more.
It stinks and is a MAJOR sell out especially given that we would be the ONLY carrier with cabin crew who do it.
U.S. cabin crew dont do it.
WTF should we?
Oh thats right.............it will further help to line the pockets of the scum who run this company.
Jettlager
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jettie and Capn Cyn,
Attitudes as those you display are precisely why Qantas and the FAAA are having such a difficult time with each other. You have hit the nail on the head by conceding 'it will further help to line the pockets of the **** who run this company.' It needn't: both sides should be able to share the benefits afforded by the implementation of pragmatic solutions.
Attitudes as those you display are precisely why Qantas and the FAAA are having such a difficult time with each other. You have hit the nail on the head by conceding 'it will further help to line the pockets of the **** who run this company.' It needn't: both sides should be able to share the benefits afforded by the implementation of pragmatic solutions.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lax/Jfk/Lax..Duty hours
Call time is usually 3 hrs before time of departure ie.0830 departure has an 0530 call time.Report time is usually 1hr 30 mins before departure.
Flight time from LAX to JFK is around 5hrs 30 mins dependant on traffic, flt level and prevailing winds and general weather conditions.Likewise JFK/LAX but with a flt time of around 6hrs.Factor in transit time in JFK and you are looking at 14hr 45mins to 15hr 30 min day if everything goes according to plan.During winter this could blow out to a 17hr plus TOD
Needless to say fatigue becomes a factor on the westbound leg with a crew who are already in a state of jetlag and sleep deprivation.Service on this leg would be very ordinary due to these circumstances.Does the American CAAA allow crews ,foreign or otherwise to do these sorts of hours?
Flight time from LAX to JFK is around 5hrs 30 mins dependant on traffic, flt level and prevailing winds and general weather conditions.Likewise JFK/LAX but with a flt time of around 6hrs.Factor in transit time in JFK and you are looking at 14hr 45mins to 15hr 30 min day if everything goes according to plan.During winter this could blow out to a 17hr plus TOD
Needless to say fatigue becomes a factor on the westbound leg with a crew who are already in a state of jetlag and sleep deprivation.Service on this leg would be very ordinary due to these circumstances.Does the American CAAA allow crews ,foreign or otherwise to do these sorts of hours?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question....
Didn't Qantas use to operate the shuttle between LAX and JFK years ago without the layover??? I heard this was the case but it never worked out (weather problems in NY, delays, fatigued crew, crew calling in sick etc.) ....hence the reason why the layover in NY was necessary.
I honestly don't think it will work this time either!
Rollz
Didn't Qantas use to operate the shuttle between LAX and JFK years ago without the layover??? I heard this was the case but it never worked out (weather problems in NY, delays, fatigued crew, crew calling in sick etc.) ....hence the reason why the layover in NY was necessary.
I honestly don't think it will work this time either!
Rollz
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you feel sick when you get their, get off. When a few of you do it at once, and their are no crew to fill in, the plane will be parked for a little bit whilst a replacement is shipped in.
Might end up getting slips back soon thereafter.
Might end up getting slips back soon thereafter.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blueloo isn't what you infer tantamount to commercial sabotage or suicide? Whats the term - "Screw the company" perhaps?
Rollzroyce I don't remember any shuttles, but QF used to operate from SFO through NYC to LHR with slips at SFO and NYC - mind you that was with the B707.
Rollzroyce I don't remember any shuttles, but QF used to operate from SFO through NYC to LHR with slips at SFO and NYC - mind you that was with the B707.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the link to the FAR, not sure whether they apply to foreign crew.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...t%20attendants
Legally, I think a transcon turn is allowed but the unions simply do not allow it - at least for the top 3 legacy carriers.
I think after coming from either AKL or SYD, it would still be tough to do a transcon turn.
How long is the layover usually in LAX?
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...t%20attendants
Legally, I think a transcon turn is allowed but the unions simply do not allow it - at least for the top 3 legacy carriers.
I think after coming from either AKL or SYD, it would still be tough to do a transcon turn.
How long is the layover usually in LAX?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sick in New York
Hi All,
This is my first post so I'd like to say g'day! It's been some very interesting reading on this site.
Blueloo - I agree. It would only take a few crew to go sick occassionally, and QF would have all sorts of problems. It could legitimately happen. I've been in situations where we have lost 3 crew members between SYD-MEL-SIN.
AnimalClub - Yes, I guess if it is intentional, then that would be commercial sabbotage and this just proves how dangerous the situation has become, with such a low morale in Cabin Crew. It's a shame - I used to be proud to work for QF.
This is my first post so I'd like to say g'day! It's been some very interesting reading on this site.
Blueloo - I agree. It would only take a few crew to go sick occassionally, and QF would have all sorts of problems. It could legitimately happen. I've been in situations where we have lost 3 crew members between SYD-MEL-SIN.
AnimalClub - Yes, I guess if it is intentional, then that would be commercial sabbotage and this just proves how dangerous the situation has become, with such a low morale in Cabin Crew. It's a shame - I used to be proud to work for QF.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is a cut and past from the Longhaul FAAA.
4 April 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
New York and Beyond……..
By now you will have all either read or heard of the Company's proposal and the FAAA's response in relation to the New York patterns. It's very important that as flight attendants we all understand both the motivation for this decision and also the FAAA response._
There should be no doubt at all that Qantas is indeed very profitable, and we understand that members are angry that despite this profitability another slip destination is taken away. We should also be in no doubt that Qantas will continue to look for further opportunities to save more money in the Cabin Crew area. Our role as your elected representatives is to take decisions in consultation with you where possible to ensure job security is paramount. Conditions as such become irrelevant if you are no longer employed.
Firstly, the two bid period dispensation gives all flight attendants not just your FAAA representatives the opportunity to be part of the decision making process during that period. The time given by the Company for us to make a permanent decision was insufficient for us to canvass member's views properly.
If momentary popularity with the membership was the motivating factor behind FAAA decisions, then it would be easy to have pre-written responses saying NO to everything that Qantas wanted from Long Haul Crew._
Unfortunately, it is less about popularity and more about painstaking evaluation of the possible long and short term consequences of any decisions that we make. On face value, many flight attendants are concerned about what is perceived as "breaking" our EBA hours limitations by the dispensation given by the FAAA on the New York Shuttle Option.
A more detailed examination reveals a very complex situation requiring very careful consideration of the whole nature of our cost structure, and what we perceive to be the potential for the gradual erosion of the Long Haul Division, by the removal of our work to other flight attendants and subsidiary airlines within the Qantas group.
I guess we all would have liked to believe that the 3 Year EBA signed in December last year would have provided the stability that we had hoped for. Unfortunately, there are other elements at work in our lives. Jetstar, Jetstar Asia, Australian Airlines, Short Haul Qantas, and overseas based crew all provide a lower cost structure and these people compete with Long Haul within the Qantas group for work._
Our focus from now on will be engaging our membership and developing responses and strategies to ensure that we are not left on the proverbial shelf, while other flight attendants who are cheaper and more flexible take our work.
If it is, that we want to remain fixed to a mindset, conditions and hours that were set in the 1970's and fight to retain those against a backdrop of change around us, then we will have to consider as a group where that will place us relative to those, not only in other overseas airlines, but those within the Qantas group. It is a decision that we must all make together.
It is probable that Qantas will purchase a newer generation of aircraft in the ensuing months and years that will have the potential to fly in excess of 20 hours, potentially even longer. Qantas' competitors will purchase those too, and their crew will reach agreement to fly them against the Qantas Group.
If the view of our membership is that 14 hours, 17 hours planned will be our benchmark forever, then Qantas will honour its EBA commitments to us while we still have jobs, but will use alternate workers with more flexible conditions and lower labour costs to do what we view as our work.
What then does this mean for Long Haul Flight attendants?? It is all doom and gloom for us??
Our view is that Long Haul Flight attendants are intelligent enough to see the reality of the situation and make pragmatic decisions. This does not mean that the FAAA leadership or its members should just make ad hoc decisions that will gradually render the EBA irrelevant.
Over the next 2-3 months we will be calling meetings of members. We will be giving you the opportunity to have face to face discussions with us and each other about our future in Long Haul. It will give us the opportunity to discuss with you the important issues that the FAAA leadership has discussed internally and provide you with our thoughts and ideas for securing the future of the Long Haul Division.
Where does New York fit in with all this?
The New York scenario is just an illustration of all of the above. It is perfectly legal for the company to put overseas based crew on those patterns but with potentially very serious long term implications for Australian based Long Haul Crew.
Our dispensation is not so much about a "trial", but more about a bit of breathing space so that "all" long haul crew can participate in any decision about the future of the shuttle to New York beyond the period of the dispensation.
The easiest thing for us to do and initially the most popular thing would have been to say no to the dispensation. That would of course facilitate more flying going to the overseas bases. What many crew do not realize however is that in order to facilitate the shuttle with Auckland based crew would have meant that a significant number of slots on all Los Angeles patterns would be taken away from Australian Based crew. Further, if New York goes to a daily service then it's possible that Australian based crew would find it very hard to get an LA pattern.
When "all" of the consequences have been aired and discussed then crew can make their views known on an informed basis and can advise the FAAA leadership accordingly.
Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division
-------------------------------------------------------------
I for one cant believe the disingenuous bull**** in this FAAA newsletter.
They claim that the advances in technology are the reason that we must lift the planned flight duty limitations that have been the norm for decades but COMPLETELY ignore the fact that in this instance we are talking MULTI SECTOR.
Sure, aircraft now fly further and for longer than ever before with the next generation being able to fly point to point anyway in the world.
Whilst I dread the thought of these types of sectors the on board amenities that will come with these new aircraft types will [and do for the leading longhaul carriers] include humidifiers, QUALITY bunks/rest areas and large chunks of "time off" on board, in which to rest.
Emirates [not traditionally known for its progressive, "crew friendly" approach] as an example, operate Dubai to Aust. East coast with flight times around 15-16 hours.
My understanding is that the A340s operating these sectors have underfloor bunks complete with entertainment systems and rules that ENSURE that the service is structured so that all crew recieve 4 hours off, in one hit, in a bunk.
LAX-JFK-LAX will routinely blow out to 15-17 hours+ especially in winter but as a multi sector operation the most the CC can hope for in the way of rest would be 1.5 hours across and perhaps a little more coming back given that a bar and meal will be scheduled for both.
This inhumane tour of duty has not been attempted by ANY of the major US carriers despite the BILLIONS in losses they have endured and yet the FILTH running QANTAS [THE WORLDS MOST PROFITABLE AIRLINE] expect to operate us halfway across the world, slip us for 1 local night and then do it!!!!!!
And the FAAA are in support of it..........????????
Long range aircraft are NO excuse for any of us to start accepting inhumane MULTI SECTOR tours of duty.
Sure, technology has come a long way since the 1970s but the human bodies need for rest has NOT evolved in the same fashion.
SINGLE SECTOR LONG RANGE TOURS OF DUTY THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE ONBOARD TIME OFF AND REST.................? SURE, THEY ARE INEVITABLE.
MULTI SECTOR INHUMANE SECTORS LIKE THIS...........?[That US majors won' t do]
YOU CAN STICK THEM WHERE THE SUN DOESNT SHINE AND/OR GIVE THEM TO THE KIWIS.
Jettlager
P.S. I urge ALL longhaul CC to voice their disgust to both your "handlers" and the FAAA.
4 April 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
New York and Beyond……..
By now you will have all either read or heard of the Company's proposal and the FAAA's response in relation to the New York patterns. It's very important that as flight attendants we all understand both the motivation for this decision and also the FAAA response._
There should be no doubt at all that Qantas is indeed very profitable, and we understand that members are angry that despite this profitability another slip destination is taken away. We should also be in no doubt that Qantas will continue to look for further opportunities to save more money in the Cabin Crew area. Our role as your elected representatives is to take decisions in consultation with you where possible to ensure job security is paramount. Conditions as such become irrelevant if you are no longer employed.
Firstly, the two bid period dispensation gives all flight attendants not just your FAAA representatives the opportunity to be part of the decision making process during that period. The time given by the Company for us to make a permanent decision was insufficient for us to canvass member's views properly.
If momentary popularity with the membership was the motivating factor behind FAAA decisions, then it would be easy to have pre-written responses saying NO to everything that Qantas wanted from Long Haul Crew._
Unfortunately, it is less about popularity and more about painstaking evaluation of the possible long and short term consequences of any decisions that we make. On face value, many flight attendants are concerned about what is perceived as "breaking" our EBA hours limitations by the dispensation given by the FAAA on the New York Shuttle Option.
A more detailed examination reveals a very complex situation requiring very careful consideration of the whole nature of our cost structure, and what we perceive to be the potential for the gradual erosion of the Long Haul Division, by the removal of our work to other flight attendants and subsidiary airlines within the Qantas group.
I guess we all would have liked to believe that the 3 Year EBA signed in December last year would have provided the stability that we had hoped for. Unfortunately, there are other elements at work in our lives. Jetstar, Jetstar Asia, Australian Airlines, Short Haul Qantas, and overseas based crew all provide a lower cost structure and these people compete with Long Haul within the Qantas group for work._
Our focus from now on will be engaging our membership and developing responses and strategies to ensure that we are not left on the proverbial shelf, while other flight attendants who are cheaper and more flexible take our work.
If it is, that we want to remain fixed to a mindset, conditions and hours that were set in the 1970's and fight to retain those against a backdrop of change around us, then we will have to consider as a group where that will place us relative to those, not only in other overseas airlines, but those within the Qantas group. It is a decision that we must all make together.
It is probable that Qantas will purchase a newer generation of aircraft in the ensuing months and years that will have the potential to fly in excess of 20 hours, potentially even longer. Qantas' competitors will purchase those too, and their crew will reach agreement to fly them against the Qantas Group.
If the view of our membership is that 14 hours, 17 hours planned will be our benchmark forever, then Qantas will honour its EBA commitments to us while we still have jobs, but will use alternate workers with more flexible conditions and lower labour costs to do what we view as our work.
What then does this mean for Long Haul Flight attendants?? It is all doom and gloom for us??
Our view is that Long Haul Flight attendants are intelligent enough to see the reality of the situation and make pragmatic decisions. This does not mean that the FAAA leadership or its members should just make ad hoc decisions that will gradually render the EBA irrelevant.
Over the next 2-3 months we will be calling meetings of members. We will be giving you the opportunity to have face to face discussions with us and each other about our future in Long Haul. It will give us the opportunity to discuss with you the important issues that the FAAA leadership has discussed internally and provide you with our thoughts and ideas for securing the future of the Long Haul Division.
Where does New York fit in with all this?
The New York scenario is just an illustration of all of the above. It is perfectly legal for the company to put overseas based crew on those patterns but with potentially very serious long term implications for Australian based Long Haul Crew.
Our dispensation is not so much about a "trial", but more about a bit of breathing space so that "all" long haul crew can participate in any decision about the future of the shuttle to New York beyond the period of the dispensation.
The easiest thing for us to do and initially the most popular thing would have been to say no to the dispensation. That would of course facilitate more flying going to the overseas bases. What many crew do not realize however is that in order to facilitate the shuttle with Auckland based crew would have meant that a significant number of slots on all Los Angeles patterns would be taken away from Australian Based crew. Further, if New York goes to a daily service then it's possible that Australian based crew would find it very hard to get an LA pattern.
When "all" of the consequences have been aired and discussed then crew can make their views known on an informed basis and can advise the FAAA leadership accordingly.
Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division
-------------------------------------------------------------
I for one cant believe the disingenuous bull**** in this FAAA newsletter.
They claim that the advances in technology are the reason that we must lift the planned flight duty limitations that have been the norm for decades but COMPLETELY ignore the fact that in this instance we are talking MULTI SECTOR.
Sure, aircraft now fly further and for longer than ever before with the next generation being able to fly point to point anyway in the world.
Whilst I dread the thought of these types of sectors the on board amenities that will come with these new aircraft types will [and do for the leading longhaul carriers] include humidifiers, QUALITY bunks/rest areas and large chunks of "time off" on board, in which to rest.
Emirates [not traditionally known for its progressive, "crew friendly" approach] as an example, operate Dubai to Aust. East coast with flight times around 15-16 hours.
My understanding is that the A340s operating these sectors have underfloor bunks complete with entertainment systems and rules that ENSURE that the service is structured so that all crew recieve 4 hours off, in one hit, in a bunk.
LAX-JFK-LAX will routinely blow out to 15-17 hours+ especially in winter but as a multi sector operation the most the CC can hope for in the way of rest would be 1.5 hours across and perhaps a little more coming back given that a bar and meal will be scheduled for both.
This inhumane tour of duty has not been attempted by ANY of the major US carriers despite the BILLIONS in losses they have endured and yet the FILTH running QANTAS [THE WORLDS MOST PROFITABLE AIRLINE] expect to operate us halfway across the world, slip us for 1 local night and then do it!!!!!!
And the FAAA are in support of it..........????????
Long range aircraft are NO excuse for any of us to start accepting inhumane MULTI SECTOR tours of duty.
Sure, technology has come a long way since the 1970s but the human bodies need for rest has NOT evolved in the same fashion.
SINGLE SECTOR LONG RANGE TOURS OF DUTY THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE ONBOARD TIME OFF AND REST.................? SURE, THEY ARE INEVITABLE.
MULTI SECTOR INHUMANE SECTORS LIKE THIS...........?[That US majors won' t do]
YOU CAN STICK THEM WHERE THE SUN DOESNT SHINE AND/OR GIVE THEM TO THE KIWIS.
Jettlager
P.S. I urge ALL longhaul CC to voice their disgust to both your "handlers" and the FAAA.
Last edited by jettlager; 4th Apr 2005 at 07:32.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the QF crew,
I work with AO and we are in the midst of fighting for our rights. I would just like to convey me feelings of support to you aswell. I have read all the posts regarding the LAX-JFK-LAX shuttles and sympathise with you also. What is proposed is not a healthy or safe operation to be part of an airlines regular schedule. Sure it cuts costs somewhere but really what are the long term costs. It is inevidble that there will be sick leave and certainly a detriment to the on board service. I came from an airline where we operated these duty hours (SYD-DPS-SYD, MEL-DPS-MEL, about the same as LAX-JFK-LAX) time and time again and saw crew going sick all the time. It was just not profitable for the airline to continue it and passed it back to domestic crew who were more than happy as they recieved benefits for operating these sectors. I don't want this to happen to you. Qantas is a company and they are looking to cut costs everywhere. The introduction of AO and JQ are part of this. As crew we are not part of this "take over everyone elses flying" business. If we had the choice where do you think we would rather be?. Fight for your rights and protect them. I think a lot of people have forgotten that we are actually employed by the same company and I for one fight for the rights of all of us, regardless of which department we "actually" fly for. It's about time we as cabin crew united together and approached the company and asked where we stand in the future of the company as crew. We have to unite because no cabin crew in this company is superior to any other now. We are all employees and we have to look after our collective interests.
I work with AO and we are in the midst of fighting for our rights. I would just like to convey me feelings of support to you aswell. I have read all the posts regarding the LAX-JFK-LAX shuttles and sympathise with you also. What is proposed is not a healthy or safe operation to be part of an airlines regular schedule. Sure it cuts costs somewhere but really what are the long term costs. It is inevidble that there will be sick leave and certainly a detriment to the on board service. I came from an airline where we operated these duty hours (SYD-DPS-SYD, MEL-DPS-MEL, about the same as LAX-JFK-LAX) time and time again and saw crew going sick all the time. It was just not profitable for the airline to continue it and passed it back to domestic crew who were more than happy as they recieved benefits for operating these sectors. I don't want this to happen to you. Qantas is a company and they are looking to cut costs everywhere. The introduction of AO and JQ are part of this. As crew we are not part of this "take over everyone elses flying" business. If we had the choice where do you think we would rather be?. Fight for your rights and protect them. I think a lot of people have forgotten that we are actually employed by the same company and I for one fight for the rights of all of us, regardless of which department we "actually" fly for. It's about time we as cabin crew united together and approached the company and asked where we stand in the future of the company as crew. We have to unite because no cabin crew in this company is superior to any other now. We are all employees and we have to look after our collective interests.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missleadfoot,
thanks for the words of support. Timely advise indeed that geoff dixon and his goons are the common enemy. Not each other.
The Qantas Group- Bringing to the 21st. century the terms and conditions for its Cabin Crew of 19th. century British coal mines.
Jettlager
P.S. How many people would be comfortable being flown by pilots operating LAX-JFK-LAX under the same arrangements we are expected to endure............?
thanks for the words of support. Timely advise indeed that geoff dixon and his goons are the common enemy. Not each other.
The Qantas Group- Bringing to the 21st. century the terms and conditions for its Cabin Crew of 19th. century British coal mines.
Jettlager
P.S. How many people would be comfortable being flown by pilots operating LAX-JFK-LAX under the same arrangements we are expected to endure............?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's been said before, but one must ask oneself some SERIOUS questions, if the Tech Crew can slip and the Cabin Crew can't!
Every airline has different procedures in this regard to Tech Crew vs Cabin Crew operating hours & rest...but surely, if 'savings' are the determining factor here, then SURELY they could save themselves EVEN MORE money by requiring the Tech Crew to do the same.
Or would that just be too simple or political a function to perform?
Last time I looked, the Cabin Crew formed part of the TOTAL crew of an aircraft...what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this respect, I say!
Every airline has different procedures in this regard to Tech Crew vs Cabin Crew operating hours & rest...but surely, if 'savings' are the determining factor here, then SURELY they could save themselves EVEN MORE money by requiring the Tech Crew to do the same.
Or would that just be too simple or political a function to perform?
Last time I looked, the Cabin Crew formed part of the TOTAL crew of an aircraft...what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this respect, I say!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
batodd...
I believe the FAAA notice says the following (short but sweet):
1) By NOT providing the dispensation, the flying would have gone to overseas base crews
2) This would not normally be a problem. However, this eats into more Australian-based flying by Australian crew AND the direct LAX flying trips that are preferred by Australian crew would be reduced further.
By handing the flying to overseas based crew, the 'choices' to Australian crew are diminished further.
3) Change is coming. Whilst it may be tinkered with, it cannot be controlled.
QF has divided and conquered the airline to the extent that each division is awarded flying based on the lowest costs available. This means each division is in competition with the other for what might normally be considered 'their' flying (ie. Short Haul doing international flying of up to 14 hours in the Asian time zone area, etc), all for the purposes of continuing employment, etc.
Meetings will be held to discuss how current conditions may be preserved, in light of the many attempts to erode them by QF mgmt.
** That's as I understand it **
I believe the FAAA notice says the following (short but sweet):
1) By NOT providing the dispensation, the flying would have gone to overseas base crews
2) This would not normally be a problem. However, this eats into more Australian-based flying by Australian crew AND the direct LAX flying trips that are preferred by Australian crew would be reduced further.
By handing the flying to overseas based crew, the 'choices' to Australian crew are diminished further.
3) Change is coming. Whilst it may be tinkered with, it cannot be controlled.
QF has divided and conquered the airline to the extent that each division is awarded flying based on the lowest costs available. This means each division is in competition with the other for what might normally be considered 'their' flying (ie. Short Haul doing international flying of up to 14 hours in the Asian time zone area, etc), all for the purposes of continuing employment, etc.
Meetings will be held to discuss how current conditions may be preserved, in light of the many attempts to erode them by QF mgmt.
** That's as I understand it **