Qantas; the thread.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jesski, jettlager, Biscuit Chucker and H_Girl!
Thanks for your wishes and kind words!!!
Well its been another long day! But I am really enjoying myself at the moment.
Not sure how BOM will be achieved but they may launch the A330 on that route in the future. I think, as gigs has mentioned, the Short Haul EBA is due to expire so they may amend that on to it etc???
I know that the 767's operate on the Narita route (I think the QF 21, 22 etc) so we can actually do those trips.
Thanks for the advice MUM (H_girl)...just kidding
No seriously thanks, I will definitely keep what you said in my mind when we start going out with the Crew!!
Im too tired to talk about what today’s training involved, but just some usual familiarisations with the duties of a flight attendant etc... Was fun!
Tomorrow is EP's
Not sure how I feel about it at the moment! I think I will enjoy the drills and all, but not the exams!
Take care all!
Rollz
Thanks for your wishes and kind words!!!
Well its been another long day! But I am really enjoying myself at the moment.
Not sure how BOM will be achieved but they may launch the A330 on that route in the future. I think, as gigs has mentioned, the Short Haul EBA is due to expire so they may amend that on to it etc???
I know that the 767's operate on the Narita route (I think the QF 21, 22 etc) so we can actually do those trips.
Thanks for the advice MUM (H_girl)...just kidding
No seriously thanks, I will definitely keep what you said in my mind when we start going out with the Crew!!Im too tired to talk about what today’s training involved, but just some usual familiarisations with the duties of a flight attendant etc... Was fun!
Tomorrow is EP's
Not sure how I feel about it at the moment! I think I will enjoy the drills and all, but not the exams! Take care all!
Rollz
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr jet lagger thanx for your response,how do i feel, ive been mam for 3 yrs short of 3 mths.i love flying i love my job.rights eba union/mam(same office) future etc are, all a big nothing to me.i and my assocs.get a great income for the job but,thats it. we are as said many times on many posts on the out side looking in.do i believe in seniority job security and doing your time etc yes, i do and had survived like this at ansett for many yrs. do i think that the way divisions and my type of employment denudes working conditions of your folk,yes i do.do i like it,no i dont.could i say more......................oh yeh!!!!!!! cheers gigs
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Perth, AUS
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jettlager;
I see (as an outsider) like this. Qantas obviously has some verry skilled Industrial Relations officers on board, because they seem to have out manuvered you all. Like a Military Strategy, instead of attacking one of their larger slices of the workforce in one frontal assualt, they have split you guys up totally.
Here is how I have seen it. The Howard Govt has reforms in place that prohibit protected Industrial Action by a group unless specific actions have taken place (eg: negotiation of a EBA, negotiations breaking down, proper notice given etc). So, lets divide the Long and Short haul up, so one cant strike on behalf of the others. Also put them on seperate EBA, and make sure they dont expire at the same time. Now, we will write an ambigious "regional flying agreement". Now anyone we feel like can fly new aircraft (A330), anyone can fly into Asia. Now just train up some "eergency crew needed for the peak period" (strikebreakers/ fixed term crew) to crew the only Long Haul exclusive aircraft (B747), crew the rest of the capacity with overseas bases (NZ and BKK, now also London), and shift all regional flying to SH. There, LH outfoxed, EBA signed, has taken a few years in the making, but it worked hey?
Now the SH debate. SH must be feeling pretty good, getting all this flying, new aircraft etc. OK, start up a offshoot Jetstar, begin replacing domestic routes with Jetstar. LH can still operate A330 and 767 domestically and regionally, and hang on, so can these casuals from MAM (hmm... same office as the FAAA??) Now MAM are on a DIFFERENT EBA, no striking remember, so crew anything you like with them. Now tell SH crews that the number of places they can fly east/west of Australia will change, permanancy will become a thing of the past, and oh, negotiate? Nah, better of just telling you. If you dont like it, tough! Not like planes will stop flying...
Australian Airlines routes can be taken off them, and reinstated as a Qantas flight pretty easy, 767 can be flown by Long or Short haul, and even by MAM casuals.
So we have 5 individual groups that they can focus on one at a time (as EBAs get renewed) to whittle down conditions etc. And each group is in a corner, with (seemingly) no option but to say "OK" and sign away their lifes.
I hope and wish I am wrong. Lets hope the FAAA have an effective strategy to combat this. But the old "look after your own" thing seems paramount.
So in (a much needed) summary and conclusion, your short haul colleuges appear to have little choice about "stealing" the Long Haul routes. Just like the London Base seemed a forgone conclusion.
JB
Not that im saying that I agree with the above version of events, its just the way I see it. Can we get back on topic now perhaps?
I see (as an outsider) like this. Qantas obviously has some verry skilled Industrial Relations officers on board, because they seem to have out manuvered you all. Like a Military Strategy, instead of attacking one of their larger slices of the workforce in one frontal assualt, they have split you guys up totally.
Here is how I have seen it. The Howard Govt has reforms in place that prohibit protected Industrial Action by a group unless specific actions have taken place (eg: negotiation of a EBA, negotiations breaking down, proper notice given etc). So, lets divide the Long and Short haul up, so one cant strike on behalf of the others. Also put them on seperate EBA, and make sure they dont expire at the same time. Now, we will write an ambigious "regional flying agreement". Now anyone we feel like can fly new aircraft (A330), anyone can fly into Asia. Now just train up some "eergency crew needed for the peak period" (strikebreakers/ fixed term crew) to crew the only Long Haul exclusive aircraft (B747), crew the rest of the capacity with overseas bases (NZ and BKK, now also London), and shift all regional flying to SH. There, LH outfoxed, EBA signed, has taken a few years in the making, but it worked hey?
Now the SH debate. SH must be feeling pretty good, getting all this flying, new aircraft etc. OK, start up a offshoot Jetstar, begin replacing domestic routes with Jetstar. LH can still operate A330 and 767 domestically and regionally, and hang on, so can these casuals from MAM (hmm... same office as the FAAA??) Now MAM are on a DIFFERENT EBA, no striking remember, so crew anything you like with them. Now tell SH crews that the number of places they can fly east/west of Australia will change, permanancy will become a thing of the past, and oh, negotiate? Nah, better of just telling you. If you dont like it, tough! Not like planes will stop flying...
Australian Airlines routes can be taken off them, and reinstated as a Qantas flight pretty easy, 767 can be flown by Long or Short haul, and even by MAM casuals.
So we have 5 individual groups that they can focus on one at a time (as EBAs get renewed) to whittle down conditions etc. And each group is in a corner, with (seemingly) no option but to say "OK" and sign away their lifes.
I hope and wish I am wrong. Lets hope the FAAA have an effective strategy to combat this. But the old "look after your own" thing seems paramount.
So in (a much needed) summary and conclusion, your short haul colleuges appear to have little choice about "stealing" the Long Haul routes. Just like the London Base seemed a forgone conclusion.
JB
Not that im saying that I agree with the above version of events, its just the way I see it. Can we get back on topic now perhaps?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies guys.
No more fulltime positions for shorthaul?
The continued push towards casualisation of the workforce is nothing short of disgusting.
Sorry for hijacking the thread but I've one more question.
Rollsroyce,
are there any language speakers in your class?
Thanks Jettlager
P.S. The funny [tragic] thing is that at Longhaul we have more to fear from the outcome of the shorthaul EBA than our own.
No more fulltime positions for shorthaul?
The continued push towards casualisation of the workforce is nothing short of disgusting.
Sorry for hijacking the thread but I've one more question.
Rollsroyce,
are there any language speakers in your class?
Thanks Jettlager
P.S. The funny [tragic] thing is that at Longhaul we have more to fear from the outcome of the shorthaul EBA than our own.
Last edited by jettlager; 13th Apr 2005 at 00:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jb_flyer
"767 can be flown by Long or Short haul, and even by MAM casuals."
jb_flyer, MAM casuals are short haul, we're not a completely separate crew who only fly certain sectors on certain aircraft with a big hat on our heads stating MAM! The only thing different is the contract etc. We do all the same flying as permanent crew, casual's crew 767 and A330 aircraft every single day!
This month PER S/H are flying to SIN, as of next month PER S/H are also flying to HKG and NRT as per the bid package.
jb_flyer, another correction, as said before, casuals crew exactly the same aircraft as any short haul permanent crew member, obviously excluding 747. So QF can't "crew anything" with casuals as you said.
Not having a go at you, just giving you the correct info.
Oz
"767 can be flown by Long or Short haul, and even by MAM casuals."
jb_flyer, MAM casuals are short haul, we're not a completely separate crew who only fly certain sectors on certain aircraft with a big hat on our heads stating MAM! The only thing different is the contract etc. We do all the same flying as permanent crew, casual's crew 767 and A330 aircraft every single day!
This month PER S/H are flying to SIN, as of next month PER S/H are also flying to HKG and NRT as per the bid package.
jb_flyer, another correction, as said before, casuals crew exactly the same aircraft as any short haul permanent crew member, obviously excluding 747. So QF can't "crew anything" with casuals as you said.
Not having a go at you, just giving you the correct info.
Oz
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oz, i to am mam and didnt find the post offensive its just stating the obvious of what an employer can do with a casual work force and,as in the 747 has a little before your time.these guys are on our side and would like great condts/full time etc for all.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Perth, AUS
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I think some of my comments have been mis-interpreted.
The point of my post was to show that Qantas has insulated itsefl from any threat of industrial action by making the tactic less effective. By divinding its operations into 5 cabin crew groups, and basing increasing amounts of crew overseas, and having so many "subsiduary companies" they basically can hold almost any amount of flying with minimal disruption to the flying public.
Oz, I know that you guys are doing a great job, in one of my recent trips over the Nullabor I could not pick the casual from the permanant, and thats a credit to all of you! My point was although you may not see yourselves as any different to the permanants, and the passengers may not, and indeed your jobs are no different, but the Industrial Relations Commission does. As you are covered by a seperate agreement between the FAAA and MAM, and not under the SH EBA (FAAA and Qantas) this means you guys cannot participate in any protected industrial action if the SH crew want to. Now I dont think strike action is something all (any?) crew want, but lets face it, there are not too many other aces held in the workers hands! Aside from agreeing to lesser conditions of course.
And the beauty is that when its time for MAM EBA renewal, who knows what could happen? MAM hold the QF contract, but Im sure that could easily be given to any other company (JB Pty Ltd for instance) if that company could demonstrate a cheaper option. So instead of staying at the same hotels, why not the Airport Inn, or less pay, less conditions etc. Never know, the current QF management is not known for kindness latley.
I agree with Jettlagger. It is nothing short of appaling. Will this stop me wanting to do it? No. It still is the only way to fly for Qantas right here right now for a new entrant (unless i lived in the UK, Bangkok or NZ of course). I just hope that the 5 divisions realise where the opposition is coming from (HINT: Its not each other....) and that any new agreements will aparantly with conditions that QF sets.
JB
Oh and PS: My sentance about MAM crew being able to "crew anything", perhaps I could have reworded that paragraph a little better and for that I apologise. The correct meaning was that MAM crew can crew any aircraft that a Short Haul crewmember can, as the paragraph was about the SH crew checkmate. Was illustrating the depth of options QF have to crew those "SH routes" routes, with LH crew on 747 (domestically flown) A330 (domestic and regional) or 767 (domestic and regional) or MAM crew on 737, 767, A330. I guess a CSM would have to be found from somewhere but, is this a CASA requirement?
The point of my post was to show that Qantas has insulated itsefl from any threat of industrial action by making the tactic less effective. By divinding its operations into 5 cabin crew groups, and basing increasing amounts of crew overseas, and having so many "subsiduary companies" they basically can hold almost any amount of flying with minimal disruption to the flying public.
Oz, I know that you guys are doing a great job, in one of my recent trips over the Nullabor I could not pick the casual from the permanant, and thats a credit to all of you! My point was although you may not see yourselves as any different to the permanants, and the passengers may not, and indeed your jobs are no different, but the Industrial Relations Commission does. As you are covered by a seperate agreement between the FAAA and MAM, and not under the SH EBA (FAAA and Qantas) this means you guys cannot participate in any protected industrial action if the SH crew want to. Now I dont think strike action is something all (any?) crew want, but lets face it, there are not too many other aces held in the workers hands! Aside from agreeing to lesser conditions of course.
And the beauty is that when its time for MAM EBA renewal, who knows what could happen? MAM hold the QF contract, but Im sure that could easily be given to any other company (JB Pty Ltd for instance) if that company could demonstrate a cheaper option. So instead of staying at the same hotels, why not the Airport Inn, or less pay, less conditions etc. Never know, the current QF management is not known for kindness latley.
I agree with Jettlagger. It is nothing short of appaling. Will this stop me wanting to do it? No. It still is the only way to fly for Qantas right here right now for a new entrant (unless i lived in the UK, Bangkok or NZ of course). I just hope that the 5 divisions realise where the opposition is coming from (HINT: Its not each other....) and that any new agreements will aparantly with conditions that QF sets.
JB
Oh and PS: My sentance about MAM crew being able to "crew anything", perhaps I could have reworded that paragraph a little better and for that I apologise. The correct meaning was that MAM crew can crew any aircraft that a Short Haul crewmember can, as the paragraph was about the SH crew checkmate. Was illustrating the depth of options QF have to crew those "SH routes" routes, with LH crew on 747 (domestically flown) A330 (domestic and regional) or 767 (domestic and regional) or MAM crew on 737, 767, A330. I guess a CSM would have to be found from somewhere but, is this a CASA requirement?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jettlager
Unfortunately short haul have no control anymore over our conditions or the type of flying we are required to undertake and we are the only ones to blame.
When casuals were introduced into short haul the FAAA assured all crew that the use of casuals would be "strictly" controlled and casual would not disadvantage permananet crew.
Now we have a situation where for the last 3 years the only new entrants have been casuals. No one knows the actual figures but it wouldnt surprise me to learn the figure would be as high as 700-900.
Therefore even if we wanted to take industrial action over any offer we were not happy with, it would be pointless as Qantas have an entire workforce capable of crewing flights for some time. This disadvantages our position when it comes to negotiating our EBA and Qantas know it.
Casuals enhance our working life through Flexiable Work Arrangements etc but also diminish our ability to reject things like the increase to 5 hours from the current 3 for regional flying. Like long haul with the removal of the overseas base restriction short haul crew cant blame anyone except ourselves as we agreed to the use of casuals.
Its not just long haul that should be concerned about the short haul EBA it will also effect MAM casuals, regional progression and wannabe cabin crew as Qantas wants to insert into the EBA a clause stating "no requirement for permanent employment". At present there is an agreement where the ratio is strictly controlled (yeah right). Therefore a MAM casual will be a MAM casual for ever in a day with no opportunity for job security or senority as mentioned gigs would like to see. Furthmore crew at the bottom of senority will always be disadvantaged (which the faaa assured crew will not occur when casuals where introduced) as no permanent crew will be employed and regional progression will not be activated which in itself is appalling.
When we were first introduced to the idea of regional flying it was explained to short haul that it would be a shared arrangement on the airbus. No one expected that it would result in the near closure of the Perth long haul base and take a lof of the traditional short regional flying away from long haul we always thought it would be shared. Now with the new divisional flying agreement and the possible introduction of new long range aircraft like the 777 which is not covered by any agreement short haul are getting more and more regional flying.
But what can we do absolutely nothing, if Qantas only offered 1% and told us to fly to the moon we would have to just accept it. The funny thing is if any industrial action was ever considered the FAAA would be on one hand supporting us and on the other directing MAM casuals to work as thats what the law dictates.
Unfortunately short haul have no control anymore over our conditions or the type of flying we are required to undertake and we are the only ones to blame.
When casuals were introduced into short haul the FAAA assured all crew that the use of casuals would be "strictly" controlled and casual would not disadvantage permananet crew.
Now we have a situation where for the last 3 years the only new entrants have been casuals. No one knows the actual figures but it wouldnt surprise me to learn the figure would be as high as 700-900.
Therefore even if we wanted to take industrial action over any offer we were not happy with, it would be pointless as Qantas have an entire workforce capable of crewing flights for some time. This disadvantages our position when it comes to negotiating our EBA and Qantas know it.
Casuals enhance our working life through Flexiable Work Arrangements etc but also diminish our ability to reject things like the increase to 5 hours from the current 3 for regional flying. Like long haul with the removal of the overseas base restriction short haul crew cant blame anyone except ourselves as we agreed to the use of casuals.
Its not just long haul that should be concerned about the short haul EBA it will also effect MAM casuals, regional progression and wannabe cabin crew as Qantas wants to insert into the EBA a clause stating "no requirement for permanent employment". At present there is an agreement where the ratio is strictly controlled (yeah right). Therefore a MAM casual will be a MAM casual for ever in a day with no opportunity for job security or senority as mentioned gigs would like to see. Furthmore crew at the bottom of senority will always be disadvantaged (which the faaa assured crew will not occur when casuals where introduced) as no permanent crew will be employed and regional progression will not be activated which in itself is appalling.
When we were first introduced to the idea of regional flying it was explained to short haul that it would be a shared arrangement on the airbus. No one expected that it would result in the near closure of the Perth long haul base and take a lof of the traditional short regional flying away from long haul we always thought it would be shared. Now with the new divisional flying agreement and the possible introduction of new long range aircraft like the 777 which is not covered by any agreement short haul are getting more and more regional flying.
But what can we do absolutely nothing, if Qantas only offered 1% and told us to fly to the moon we would have to just accept it. The funny thing is if any industrial action was ever considered the FAAA would be on one hand supporting us and on the other directing MAM casuals to work as thats what the law dictates.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of one person who was casual (now permanent since the PER S/H base opened) if he would be willing to be trained on the 747 to cover strike action from long haulers at the time and if he and his friends/colleagues did, QF and MAM would look at it favourably. He said no he wouldn't do it and majority of his colleagues said yes, he got permanency and they didnt!
Oz
Oz
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry oz but that is not as such correct,could be that person is telling you thoses stats and they were not endorsed?as it stands this was all in the past with very different situations.and yes strike breakers or what ever you want to call them is like galley hag said/ backed into a corner/we started at mam got lots of work then near stop work meeting with l/haul got zero work=zero income means zero mortgage repayments.to help us out being new guys on probation with new employer after just loosing our prev flying job at an. qf. offered to help us out!/buy endorsing many on 747.my personal options were to go straight back on the dole/still doing mam and being a union member/and get a fill in full time job,when i could,to then look for a proper new job outside of flying forever.option b was to be the bad guy which when i was employed expected.this situation will not happen like this again the precedent being set for future events.now before im shot down in flames would any knockers turn their back on qf. go on the dole get a job a k.mart until they could,asap get a car selling job to pay the 300 to 400 a week your loosing to credit cards to save your flat for me???little like chalk n cheese.hassell has told a friend that no full time employment will be offered while he is in power/not a gossip factual info/ .i must say also the stealth and measures qf.went to for the above gave me an interesting insight into the culture of the company to say the least. mam said yeh go qf.said thanks union called us scabes?????????think about it....sorry for bad typing i hate typing.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This person isn't a friend, but someone who i flew with a few times and this is what they told myself and the other person i was with. They were made permanent when the PER S/H base opened and are now based in SYD. True or not, i don't know, just what we were told.
Oz
Oz
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this person you flew with was pulling your leg as the Perth short haul base was opened well before the MAM's were trained on the 747 to cover strike action. So he/she was already a permanent short hauler.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats really interesting as he/she was definately casual when he/she came to PER. The PER base isn't exactly huge and there are a lot of ex casuals there and they all knew/know each other, so i don't know what he/she was talking about then as he/she was definately casual! strange?