Qantas New York Services
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas New York Services
After reading the following notice from the FAAA International division (www.faaa.net) how do long haul crew feel about this decision? Are crew happy to accept the dispensation and still retain the flying and are the savings by not slipping crew in New York going to be that substantial to warrant such action?
Just interested in long haul crew's thoughts on this issue.
23 March 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants ID07-05
NEW YORK SERVICE
The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service. The Company told the FAAA that it was prepared to utilise its NZ based crew from BP238 to operate the New York service.
The Company advised us that in order that Long Haul crew continue to operate the New York service, it would need slipping in New York to be discontinued and for the service to be done as a shuttle out of LAX. The Company is entitled to plan this sector up to 14 hours but since any shuttle would entail a duty of 14 hours 35 minutes, dispensation from the FAAA is required if Long Haul Australian crew are to be used.
THE FAAA HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION TO QANTAS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
The dispensation will operate for 2 bid periods, BP 239 and BP 240.
Patterns can be planned up to 14 hours 35 minutes.
The slip in LAX following the shuttle cannot be below 36 hours.
That the Company maintains slips for BP 238 to allow those who wish to slip in New York to bid for these trips for 1 more bid period. This also allows for crew feedback to reach the FAAA.
Dispensation will be reviewed during the 2 bid periods. If cabin crew feedback indicates majority opposition to the dispensation, it will be revoked following the completion of BP 240. We will also be able to ascertain whether the shuttles will be desired trips and actually bid for, bearing in mind these patterns will be relatively high hour trips which are often keenly sought after.
WHY HAS THE FAAA AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION FOR THESE SHUTTLES?
The primary objective of the FAAA is to provide job security for our members. The transfer of our flying to overseas based crew (in this instance to NZ based crew) is not in the strategic interests of our membership or the long term viability of the Long Haul Division.
The use of NZ based crew to do the New York shuttle would result in the Company having to send at least 3 full crew complements of NZ based crew per week over to LAX to undertake the New York shuttles. CONSIDER THE AFFECT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE ABILITY TO BID FOR THE HIGHLY DESIRED LAX DIRECT PATTERNS.
There is a perception at the very highest levels within Qantas that the FAAA International Division and its membership are anti-Company and not interested in a co-operative approach where this is possible. This is entirely incorrect. We will vigorously defend our memberships' interests but we are not irrational to simply say NO, and thus jeopardise the job security in this Division.
This will be a dispensation for two bid periods. If it is that our membership rejects the continuation of the dispensation then the FAAA will withdraw the dispensation.
Finally, I wish to say that this decision has been a difficult decision to make, particularly at a time when there is a strained atmosphere between the FAAA and Qantas resulting from issues such as directed long service leave, attacks on the FAAA leadership by senior Qantas executives and the impasse with Australian Airlines over EBA negotiations.
The easy option for the FAAA would be to say NO in relation to the New York issue. However, my colleagues and I will not adopt the position of taking the easy way out and burying our heads in the sand and simply rejecting Company requests on the basis of knee jerk reactions.
Ultimately, crew will not thank the FAAA if more and more of their flying is taken away because the Company has concluded that it cannot deal with this Division and decides to send our traditional flying to others.
Whilst some members may not be happy with our decision, I urge all of you to consider the logic and the rationale for the decision and to use the trial period to discuss this issue with colleagues.
We will write to you again in the near future outlining the mechanism to be used to obtain members' feedback on this issue.
Just interested in long haul crew's thoughts on this issue.
23 March 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants ID07-05
NEW YORK SERVICE
The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service. The Company told the FAAA that it was prepared to utilise its NZ based crew from BP238 to operate the New York service.
The Company advised us that in order that Long Haul crew continue to operate the New York service, it would need slipping in New York to be discontinued and for the service to be done as a shuttle out of LAX. The Company is entitled to plan this sector up to 14 hours but since any shuttle would entail a duty of 14 hours 35 minutes, dispensation from the FAAA is required if Long Haul Australian crew are to be used.
THE FAAA HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION TO QANTAS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
The dispensation will operate for 2 bid periods, BP 239 and BP 240.
Patterns can be planned up to 14 hours 35 minutes.
The slip in LAX following the shuttle cannot be below 36 hours.
That the Company maintains slips for BP 238 to allow those who wish to slip in New York to bid for these trips for 1 more bid period. This also allows for crew feedback to reach the FAAA.
Dispensation will be reviewed during the 2 bid periods. If cabin crew feedback indicates majority opposition to the dispensation, it will be revoked following the completion of BP 240. We will also be able to ascertain whether the shuttles will be desired trips and actually bid for, bearing in mind these patterns will be relatively high hour trips which are often keenly sought after.
WHY HAS THE FAAA AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION FOR THESE SHUTTLES?
The primary objective of the FAAA is to provide job security for our members. The transfer of our flying to overseas based crew (in this instance to NZ based crew) is not in the strategic interests of our membership or the long term viability of the Long Haul Division.
The use of NZ based crew to do the New York shuttle would result in the Company having to send at least 3 full crew complements of NZ based crew per week over to LAX to undertake the New York shuttles. CONSIDER THE AFFECT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE ABILITY TO BID FOR THE HIGHLY DESIRED LAX DIRECT PATTERNS.
There is a perception at the very highest levels within Qantas that the FAAA International Division and its membership are anti-Company and not interested in a co-operative approach where this is possible. This is entirely incorrect. We will vigorously defend our memberships' interests but we are not irrational to simply say NO, and thus jeopardise the job security in this Division.
This will be a dispensation for two bid periods. If it is that our membership rejects the continuation of the dispensation then the FAAA will withdraw the dispensation.
Finally, I wish to say that this decision has been a difficult decision to make, particularly at a time when there is a strained atmosphere between the FAAA and Qantas resulting from issues such as directed long service leave, attacks on the FAAA leadership by senior Qantas executives and the impasse with Australian Airlines over EBA negotiations.
The easy option for the FAAA would be to say NO in relation to the New York issue. However, my colleagues and I will not adopt the position of taking the easy way out and burying our heads in the sand and simply rejecting Company requests on the basis of knee jerk reactions.
Ultimately, crew will not thank the FAAA if more and more of their flying is taken away because the Company has concluded that it cannot deal with this Division and decides to send our traditional flying to others.
Whilst some members may not be happy with our decision, I urge all of you to consider the logic and the rationale for the decision and to use the trial period to discuss this issue with colleagues.
We will write to you again in the near future outlining the mechanism to be used to obtain members' feedback on this issue.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh! Did I miss something here?
Let me get this straight...
QF will continue the slip if the service is operated by NZ crew.
What, the whole crew? What about the CSM and CSS?
And how are they going to get that number of NZ crew to New York - hire a Concorde????
I'm not sure if I'm mad at the FAAA for the garbage communication or agreeing to the dispensation.
Is there any end to this erosion of everything?
Here's a forecast for you.
If QF get away with this very shortly 14:30 days will become the norm and slips will suffer OR the route will go to the cheap crew (NZ, BKK or AO)
Let me get this straight...
QF will continue the slip if the service is operated by NZ crew.
What, the whole crew? What about the CSM and CSS?
And how are they going to get that number of NZ crew to New York - hire a Concorde????
I'm not sure if I'm mad at the FAAA for the garbage communication or agreeing to the dispensation.
Is there any end to this erosion of everything?
Here's a forecast for you.
If QF get away with this very shortly 14:30 days will become the norm and slips will suffer OR the route will go to the cheap crew (NZ, BKK or AO)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tech Crew Slip?
What are the tech crew hours limitations?...will they still slip in New York?This is more about reducing costs to compete with SingAir than any thing else.Otherwise why did it take so long for the brains trust in management to figure this out?
In winter with delays and long aircraft departure Qs on the runway expect TODs to more like 17 hrs(or more).
As was said earlier a lose lose situation.NYC was the last decent slip left on the network.Don' t expect the service to be too fantastic on the westbound sector(JFK/LAX)
Why oh Why didn't I take the last VR package?
In winter with delays and long aircraft departure Qs on the runway expect TODs to more like 17 hrs(or more).
As was said earlier a lose lose situation.NYC was the last decent slip left on the network.Don' t expect the service to be too fantastic on the westbound sector(JFK/LAX)
Why oh Why didn't I take the last VR package?
Last edited by DEFCON4; 23rd Mar 2005 at 06:55.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qfcsm
I dont think QF intends to slip the NZ crew in New York, the notice states that the NZ crew would operate the "shuttle" and the way they will get the crew up to LAX is by taking more of your (Australian based crew) patterns to LAX therefore further reducing your flying.
You make a good point though what about the CSM or CSS - if for example the NZ crew operate this shuttle and there is no dispensation does that mean they will slip the Australian based CSM and CSS or will they just do the shuttle without either on-board manager?
I dont think QF intends to slip the NZ crew in New York, the notice states that the NZ crew would operate the "shuttle" and the way they will get the crew up to LAX is by taking more of your (Australian based crew) patterns to LAX therefore further reducing your flying.
You make a good point though what about the CSM or CSS - if for example the NZ crew operate this shuttle and there is no dispensation does that mean they will slip the Australian based CSM and CSS or will they just do the shuttle without either on-board manager?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yay a LAX/JFK/LAX shuttle - another trip to go sick on. Not many trips worth doing anymore.
As for the Kiwi's doing the shuttle, let them do it. If the company puts them on SYD-LAX directs they still have to overnight the Kiwi crew in SYD for two nights and pay them allowances.
Why weren't crew asked about this before the decision was made?
As for the Kiwi's doing the shuttle, let them do it. If the company puts them on SYD-LAX directs they still have to overnight the Kiwi crew in SYD for two nights and pay them allowances.
Why weren't crew asked about this before the decision was made?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ Crew
NZ Crew pattern will be something like:AKL/LAX(slip)LAX/JFK/LAX(slip)LAX/AKL...about a four day pattern.No slipping in Sydney,no allowances.With 2 days off in between they could do nine such patterns/BP.
Not very nice flying!!!
Whats to stop QF promoting NZ crew to the position of CSS or CSM?
Not very nice flying!!!
Whats to stop QF promoting NZ crew to the position of CSS or CSM?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complicity
Qantas Managrment is on track to break the back of the FAAA.Little by little longhaul is being broken down.
There are 3 people who are responsible: TW. GB. JB.These three allowed the concept of Off shore bases to creep into EBA 5...thats where the rot set in.It just keeps on getting worse. Why aren't these 3 individuals made answerable for their stupidity?
BTW where is GB(CSM)?Try the fourth floor of QCC..a reward or protection?
The architect of all this Ian Oldmeadow..Dixon's chief henchman in his mission to break the union.Complicity and stupidity.
There are 3 people who are responsible: TW. GB. JB.These three allowed the concept of Off shore bases to creep into EBA 5...thats where the rot set in.It just keeps on getting worse. Why aren't these 3 individuals made answerable for their stupidity?
BTW where is GB(CSM)?Try the fourth floor of QCC..a reward or protection?
The architect of all this Ian Oldmeadow..Dixon's chief henchman in his mission to break the union.Complicity and stupidity.
Last edited by jetjockey7; 23rd Mar 2005 at 09:53.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defcon4
I am soooo glad I did.
Good luck to you all.
They tried that one on the T/crew when the Chicago services started up and did not get away with it. Too hard for the poor pets.
I am soooo glad I did.
Good luck to you all.
They tried that one on the T/crew when the Chicago services started up and did not get away with it. Too hard for the poor pets.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
firepussy
Its not possible to promote NZ based crew to the position of CSM or CSS according to the following extract which is from a notice to all Long Haul crew on 9 November, 2004 relating to the EBA VII – IN PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT.
"Qantas has agreed that apart from the London base, Australian based crew will fill all promotions for CSS and CSM positions. This is the first time that Qantas has been restricted in this manner. An exchange of letters will occur between the FAAA and Qantas on this issue."
Its not possible to promote NZ based crew to the position of CSM or CSS according to the following extract which is from a notice to all Long Haul crew on 9 November, 2004 relating to the EBA VII – IN PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT.
"Qantas has agreed that apart from the London base, Australian based crew will fill all promotions for CSS and CSM positions. This is the first time that Qantas has been restricted in this manner. An exchange of letters will occur between the FAAA and Qantas on this issue."
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: somewhere safe
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Css,Csm to Akl?
So Galleyhag
They move a few CSMs,CSSs(from LHR) to AKL. Problem solved.These guys with 870 overseas crew can pretty much do whatever they want unfettered.The horse has well and truly bolted.I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
They move a few CSMs,CSSs(from LHR) to AKL. Problem solved.These guys with 870 overseas crew can pretty much do whatever they want unfettered.The horse has well and truly bolted.I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the moment no as we are limited to 13.55 planned tour of duty.
Our Union has granted dispensation by allowing 14.35 so the sector can be done.
Its a bad move and sets a precedent and will become the norm.
Interesting that US carriers who have/are losing money hand over fist can't operate their crew in this manner.
How much did we make last year????
Around a billion AUD wasn't it????
What a joke.
Jettlager
P.S. The Kiwi crew have no union representation and as such the company can and does do whatever it wants with them.
Qantas basically flies them till they drop.
Our Union has granted dispensation by allowing 14.35 so the sector can be done.
Its a bad move and sets a precedent and will become the norm.
Interesting that US carriers who have/are losing money hand over fist can't operate their crew in this manner.
How much did we make last year????
Around a billion AUD wasn't it????
What a joke.
Jettlager
P.S. The Kiwi crew have no union representation and as such the company can and does do whatever it wants with them.
Qantas basically flies them till they drop.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show us yer numbers!
From the FAAA circular:
" The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service."
Did the Company put any hard evidence before the FAAA to demonstrate the validity of its claim? If it did, did the FAAA test them? Does the union have the skills to test them?
That aside, the slipping arrangements for both pilots and cabin crew require review on a network wide basis that involves a bit of give and take from each side so that a win-win situation is the outcome. This is not rocket science but it will see a lot of the aggro between the airline and the unions evaporate.
" The Company has approached the FAAA to advise us that changes to the operation of this service are urgently required to reduce their costs, so that a pullout would not occur or alternatively to prevent the need to utilise New Zealand based crew to operate the service."
Did the Company put any hard evidence before the FAAA to demonstrate the validity of its claim? If it did, did the FAAA test them? Does the union have the skills to test them?
That aside, the slipping arrangements for both pilots and cabin crew require review on a network wide basis that involves a bit of give and take from each side so that a win-win situation is the outcome. This is not rocket science but it will see a lot of the aggro between the airline and the unions evaporate.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
i'd be very interested to hear your suggestions re slipping formular arrangements and what changes you might suggest that would result in a win,win for all parties.
jettlager
i'd be very interested to hear your suggestions re slipping formular arrangements and what changes you might suggest that would result in a win,win for all parties.
jettlager
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jettie,
I'd love to tell you but if I did I'd have to shoot you!!
However, anyone who is even slightly familiar with crew patterns would be able to explain where there is scope for efficiency. Even you must know where some of these 'inefficiencies' exist that could be solved by little thought outside the square. As I have previously said, it's not rocket science, but the real skill is brokering an agreement between the parties. The best way to do this is to deliver an outcome that's win-win for each side, and that also does not require a lot of brain power - just a will on both sides to move forward. It seems to me that neither the FAAA or Qantas are not in this frame of mind. 'Nuff said!
I'd love to tell you but if I did I'd have to shoot you!!
However, anyone who is even slightly familiar with crew patterns would be able to explain where there is scope for efficiency. Even you must know where some of these 'inefficiencies' exist that could be solved by little thought outside the square. As I have previously said, it's not rocket science, but the real skill is brokering an agreement between the parties. The best way to do this is to deliver an outcome that's win-win for each side, and that also does not require a lot of brain power - just a will on both sides to move forward. It seems to me that neither the FAAA or Qantas are not in this frame of mind. 'Nuff said!
