EBA & IR Issues in Australia (Not for those easily offended!)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks our resident virgin blue mobile toilet and cabin cleaner JBM has finally lost the plot or exposed themselves as something they are not.........
His/her mental fragility was evident to all however it seems they does know who they are any more.
The following is a cut and paste from one of his/hers recent posts.
"As for you JBM (akaLeft2Primary banned from the forum), you are hardly the person to lecture someone on posting misinformation."
Weird............................
His/her mental fragility was evident to all however it seems they does know who they are any more.
The following is a cut and paste from one of his/hers recent posts.
"As for you JBM (akaLeft2Primary banned from the forum), you are hardly the person to lecture someone on posting misinformation."
Weird............................
Last edited by jettlager; 24th Aug 2005 at 09:15.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes , I read that as well Jett.
Have you noticed how much he has changed his post, it doesn't even resemble the original post.
In the "real" post he said that even the pilots get in and help clean the toilets, and that all crew happily clean them in order to get the aircraft turned around a.s.a.p.
I think it must have been during his "dreamtime" state.
Have you noticed how much he has changed his post, it doesn't even resemble the original post.
In the "real" post he said that even the pilots get in and help clean the toilets, and that all crew happily clean them in order to get the aircraft turned around a.s.a.p.
I think it must have been during his "dreamtime" state.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q: If the faaa didn't support the LHR base, then why did they negotiate the access and conditions for Australian crew to go up there (ie. relocation allowance etc).?
A: When they realised it was going to go ahead regardless, they wanted to ensure Australian crew had first right over any locals, and that they could remain involved in determining the conditions etc. That was what I was told when I rang them over 2 months ago. They certainly don't go out there and vocally tell people not to go. Only you people seem to do that.
And by the way, no sensible replies from any of you about how we get our London flying back yet. Slanging off anyone who is up there or even contemplates it won't get the flying back.
A: When they realised it was going to go ahead regardless, they wanted to ensure Australian crew had first right over any locals, and that they could remain involved in determining the conditions etc. That was what I was told when I rang them over 2 months ago. They certainly don't go out there and vocally tell people not to go. Only you people seem to do that.
And by the way, no sensible replies from any of you about how we get our London flying back yet. Slanging off anyone who is up there or even contemplates it won't get the flying back.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHITE PONTER.....
Between you and J-B-M my faith in human kind is being destroyed :-))
Seriously, I know the senior FAAA officials personally, they (THE CURRENT FAAA PEOPLE) DID NOT support the LHR base. As i indicated earlier they (THE CURRENT FAAA OFFICIALS) were confronted by a situation that on December 17, 2004, QF had no cap on them because of the incompetence of EBA6.
They (THE CURRENT FAAA OFFICIALS) then proceeded to negotiate an ongoing new cap, when QF had asserted that they (QF) would never sign an EBA with a cap. This was done by a competent FAAA leadership which successfully savaged the QF forward bookings through an intensive and extensive media campaign against QF that lasted from April -November last year.
That is why we have a cap, that is why we have majority access to the Airbus A330, that is why we have exclusive access to the A380, that is why we have access to London FLYING, that is why the Roster Review clause from EBA6 was deleted, that is why the Pay Equalisation Review clause from EBA6 was deleted, that is why COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY WILL AFFECT OVERSEAS BASED CREW FOR THE FIRST TIME, that is whyfor the first time QF is restricted from promoting O/S based crew to CSSor CSM apart from the LHR base, that is why we got a 9% pay rise without offsets, that is why we were the first to obtain a 3 year agreement that will protect us from the Howard Govt industrial changes (which will take us to the next Federal election), that is why no massive strike action last December was necessary.
That is why 88% of Long Haul crew supported EBA7, because the vast bulk of out crew are not stupid and realise what a good outcome EBA7 was.
It is also why MM, AS AND SR are taken seriously by QF and not laughed at like the previous officials of the FAAA were.
White Pointer... the conditions for LHR were not negotiated by the FAAA because the FAAA does not support that base and because as Mijatov pointed out last year CONTINUALLY, the FAAA cannot legally represent or negotiate on behalf of crew located in another country and in another jurisdiction.
It would be the same as if the Flight Attendants Association of Nepal tried to represent and bargain on behalf of Qantas Long Haul crew (a legal impossibility).
GEEZ SOME OF YOU IN HERE NEED TO READ WHAT IS WRITTEN TO YOU BY THE FAAA, INSTEAD OF BEING IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!
Between you and J-B-M my faith in human kind is being destroyed :-))
Seriously, I know the senior FAAA officials personally, they (THE CURRENT FAAA PEOPLE) DID NOT support the LHR base. As i indicated earlier they (THE CURRENT FAAA OFFICIALS) were confronted by a situation that on December 17, 2004, QF had no cap on them because of the incompetence of EBA6.
They (THE CURRENT FAAA OFFICIALS) then proceeded to negotiate an ongoing new cap, when QF had asserted that they (QF) would never sign an EBA with a cap. This was done by a competent FAAA leadership which successfully savaged the QF forward bookings through an intensive and extensive media campaign against QF that lasted from April -November last year.
That is why we have a cap, that is why we have majority access to the Airbus A330, that is why we have exclusive access to the A380, that is why we have access to London FLYING, that is why the Roster Review clause from EBA6 was deleted, that is why the Pay Equalisation Review clause from EBA6 was deleted, that is why COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY WILL AFFECT OVERSEAS BASED CREW FOR THE FIRST TIME, that is whyfor the first time QF is restricted from promoting O/S based crew to CSSor CSM apart from the LHR base, that is why we got a 9% pay rise without offsets, that is why we were the first to obtain a 3 year agreement that will protect us from the Howard Govt industrial changes (which will take us to the next Federal election), that is why no massive strike action last December was necessary.
That is why 88% of Long Haul crew supported EBA7, because the vast bulk of out crew are not stupid and realise what a good outcome EBA7 was.
It is also why MM, AS AND SR are taken seriously by QF and not laughed at like the previous officials of the FAAA were.
White Pointer... the conditions for LHR were not negotiated by the FAAA because the FAAA does not support that base and because as Mijatov pointed out last year CONTINUALLY, the FAAA cannot legally represent or negotiate on behalf of crew located in another country and in another jurisdiction.
It would be the same as if the Flight Attendants Association of Nepal tried to represent and bargain on behalf of Qantas Long Haul crew (a legal impossibility).
GEEZ SOME OF YOU IN HERE NEED TO READ WHAT IS WRITTEN TO YOU BY THE FAAA, INSTEAD OF BEING IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Land DownUnder
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian1
Tell that to the Perth Longhaul based crew.
The FAAA is fantastic, of course, as long as you are based in SYD.
The FAAA has sat back and watched while ALL the A330 (therefore ALL the flying) has been transfered from Longhaul to Shorthaul in Perth.
Now the Perth Based have the decision:
a) transfer to Shorthaul (ie take a massive pay cut, go on a b-scale with no bands, do more work for less pay, and drop down from CSM or CSS to FA)
b) pack up your life and transfer to another base, with little or no hope of being able to commute due to the short length of trips these days
c) stay Longhaul perth, do one 3 day trip a week, never have a life as you are constantly low-line and the company owns your A days.
And the FAAA has not done a single thing about it.
Guardian1 you obviously know the FAAA execs, maybe you should let them in on a little secret ..... there are bases full of members outside of SYD!
that is why we have majority access to the Airbus A330
Tell that to the Perth Longhaul based crew.
The FAAA is fantastic, of course, as long as you are based in SYD.
The FAAA has sat back and watched while ALL the A330 (therefore ALL the flying) has been transfered from Longhaul to Shorthaul in Perth.
Now the Perth Based have the decision:
a) transfer to Shorthaul (ie take a massive pay cut, go on a b-scale with no bands, do more work for less pay, and drop down from CSM or CSS to FA)
b) pack up your life and transfer to another base, with little or no hope of being able to commute due to the short length of trips these days
c) stay Longhaul perth, do one 3 day trip a week, never have a life as you are constantly low-line and the company owns your A days.
And the FAAA has not done a single thing about it.
Guardian1 you obviously know the FAAA execs, maybe you should let them in on a little secret ..... there are bases full of members outside of SYD!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont give up guardian, there are quite a few people that are listening.
It also amazes me that white pointer and peanut are not aware of the basic facts.
Its a shame but a lot of crew really have no idea.
On a flight the other day a hostie said to me, " oh did you hear we're not slipping in JFK anymore!"
Then then said in the same breath " and not a word from the union"
Serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It also amazes me that white pointer and peanut are not aware of the basic facts.
Its a shame but a lot of crew really have no idea.
On a flight the other day a hostie said to me, " oh did you hear we're not slipping in JFK anymore!"
Then then said in the same breath " and not a word from the union"
Serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLYIN AROUND....
I understand your frustration...i really do.
However, to be blunt about it there are things that the FAAA can do and there are things that it can't do.
Mate QF has always determined how it flies its planes... it also determines what bases are established and which are closed down.
The FAAA has strenuously argued for work for the Perth Base, your local Branch Secretary Grant Ormerod is a tireless worker on your behalf. The FAAA continually argued for the ability for you guys to transfer to other bases...... and finally the Company agreed.
What the FAAA is trying to ensure is that no one in this Division is made compulsorily redundant. The EBA we work under is a national EBA, it has the same protections for everyone.
BUT, the same way as QF set up the base, it can dismantle it. The FAAA ( the current officials) does not lie or pretend to the membership. It cannot perform magic.
TOW- TRUCK....
thanks for your comments mate.. I never give up!
I'm also determined to use this forum to correct inaccuracies and to point out nonsense . Too much is at stake to allow ill- informed individuals to mislead our crew.
I might even reveal who i am . :-)
Be assured however, what i say in here is 100% correct and accurate.
I understand your frustration...i really do.
However, to be blunt about it there are things that the FAAA can do and there are things that it can't do.
Mate QF has always determined how it flies its planes... it also determines what bases are established and which are closed down.
The FAAA has strenuously argued for work for the Perth Base, your local Branch Secretary Grant Ormerod is a tireless worker on your behalf. The FAAA continually argued for the ability for you guys to transfer to other bases...... and finally the Company agreed.
What the FAAA is trying to ensure is that no one in this Division is made compulsorily redundant. The EBA we work under is a national EBA, it has the same protections for everyone.
BUT, the same way as QF set up the base, it can dismantle it. The FAAA ( the current officials) does not lie or pretend to the membership. It cannot perform magic.
TOW- TRUCK....
thanks for your comments mate.. I never give up!
I'm also determined to use this forum to correct inaccuracies and to point out nonsense . Too much is at stake to allow ill- informed individuals to mislead our crew.
I might even reveal who i am . :-)
Be assured however, what i say in here is 100% correct and accurate.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBM,
In any industrial situation, to have a balanced effect you have to have a body representing employees and on the other side the employer. To have fair representation, personal workplace agreements do not work because you do not have the same power as the employer and that is why unions are needed.
You still not have answered my post about the difference between agreement and endorsement, a subtle but distinct difference which you obviously do not understand. Not all union members are lefties as you call them but are people who need industrial protection .
I am interested in finding out in any of your jobs if you have ever taken sick leave when you were genuinely sick or had holidays because if you had then these were privileges that were won by unions, if not we would all be working 17 to 20 hours a day.
If you have taken use of any of these benefits then you know how you spell hypocrite….that’s right it starts with a J...
In any industrial situation, to have a balanced effect you have to have a body representing employees and on the other side the employer. To have fair representation, personal workplace agreements do not work because you do not have the same power as the employer and that is why unions are needed.
You still not have answered my post about the difference between agreement and endorsement, a subtle but distinct difference which you obviously do not understand. Not all union members are lefties as you call them but are people who need industrial protection .
I am interested in finding out in any of your jobs if you have ever taken sick leave when you were genuinely sick or had holidays because if you had then these were privileges that were won by unions, if not we would all be working 17 to 20 hours a day.
If you have taken use of any of these benefits then you know how you spell hypocrite….that’s right it starts with a J...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Land DownUnder
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian1
dont call me MATE, as I aint your mate
you are sounding more and more like the 'Blonde-wig-wearing' spin doctors that are the FAAA
You said in your post that Longhaul have the majority of the A330 flying - that may be so in SYD, but its certainly not the case in any other base. In Perth, ALL the flying on the A330 is done by shorthaul, the same with MEL. If the FAAA were serious, they would have made the clause a 'majority in every base' clause, oh but sorry, we are only focussing on SYD aint we !
You do not SHARE my frustration, you sit there in SYD and worry just about the SYD base.
You fools rant and rave about the LHR base - I say good luck to those that went there, the FAAA cannot/ will not do anything to help Oz bases, yet your focus is on those outside the country. If the FAAA put as much time worrying about people based in Oz as they spin doctor about those based overseas, then maybe their membership would be a bit happier.
No wonder those in Perth and Melb are leaving the FAAA in droves.
Grant is fantastic, he is obviosusly so hard working and passionate about the base, but asides from him, I am encouraging people to stop wasting their money by 'donating' to the Sydney-based Flight Attendants Association of Australia
ie the SFAAA
the SFAAA has taken our money for too long without proper representation of those paying the money ie Perth and Melb.
I would rather take my chances with the company, even though it makes me puke, I trust them more than the SFAAA.
Oh and change your nick to 'SYD Guardian1' as your are obviously SFAAA, and as such you look out for no-one but SYD crew
dont call me MATE, as I aint your mate
you are sounding more and more like the 'Blonde-wig-wearing' spin doctors that are the FAAA
You said in your post that Longhaul have the majority of the A330 flying - that may be so in SYD, but its certainly not the case in any other base. In Perth, ALL the flying on the A330 is done by shorthaul, the same with MEL. If the FAAA were serious, they would have made the clause a 'majority in every base' clause, oh but sorry, we are only focussing on SYD aint we !
You do not SHARE my frustration, you sit there in SYD and worry just about the SYD base.
You fools rant and rave about the LHR base - I say good luck to those that went there, the FAAA cannot/ will not do anything to help Oz bases, yet your focus is on those outside the country. If the FAAA put as much time worrying about people based in Oz as they spin doctor about those based overseas, then maybe their membership would be a bit happier.
No wonder those in Perth and Melb are leaving the FAAA in droves.
Grant is fantastic, he is obviosusly so hard working and passionate about the base, but asides from him, I am encouraging people to stop wasting their money by 'donating' to the Sydney-based Flight Attendants Association of Australia
ie the SFAAA
the SFAAA has taken our money for too long without proper representation of those paying the money ie Perth and Melb.
I would rather take my chances with the company, even though it makes me puke, I trust them more than the SFAAA.
Oh and change your nick to 'SYD Guardian1' as your are obviously SFAAA, and as such you look out for no-one but SYD crew
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian,
Perhaps I should rephrase what I am trying to say. The faaa supported access for australian crews to the LHR base. They do not tell people that they cannot go.
So what gives others the rights to brand people scabs and subject them to endless rumours and untruths if they choose to go up there. By going up there, they are not going to change conditions for australian crew one single bit - the damage has already been done.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I am trying to say. The faaa supported access for australian crews to the LHR base. They do not tell people that they cannot go.
So what gives others the rights to brand people scabs and subject them to endless rumours and untruths if they choose to go up there. By going up there, they are not going to change conditions for australian crew one single bit - the damage has already been done.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyinaround,
It is interesting to hear so many brand new posters with FAAA "issues".
If I was a cynic I might think that a campaign is being waged to undermine their support.............................
I'm a Sydney based member and have nothing but respect and gratitude for the industrial efforts they make in what are clearly very difficult times.
Corporate [and in our case QANTAS] greed in Australia has never been so rampant.
At a national level politically the howard government has ensured that the balance of power is well and truly with bonus seeking big business.
Can you please provide details of where you feel the FAAA have let you down with regard to the Perth base?
Keeping in mind of course the fact that Qantas management run Qantas for their owns ends not the FAAA for ours.
Jettlager
P.S. Guardian1. Thanks for your post clarifying the offshore base issues.
It is interesting to hear so many brand new posters with FAAA "issues".
If I was a cynic I might think that a campaign is being waged to undermine their support.............................
I'm a Sydney based member and have nothing but respect and gratitude for the industrial efforts they make in what are clearly very difficult times.
Corporate [and in our case QANTAS] greed in Australia has never been so rampant.
At a national level politically the howard government has ensured that the balance of power is well and truly with bonus seeking big business.
Can you please provide details of where you feel the FAAA have let you down with regard to the Perth base?
Keeping in mind of course the fact that Qantas management run Qantas for their owns ends not the FAAA for ours.
Jettlager
P.S. Guardian1. Thanks for your post clarifying the offshore base issues.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ungrateful
flying around.
Hmm I understand your frustration however I disagree that the FAAA have sat back and done nothing!.
If it wasn't for the FAAA you would not even have a job now. they have negotiated the transfer of f/a to SYD and MEL.
And at least secured your job.
If you are going to blame anyone then direct your anger at the Domestic FAAA, they are the ones that did the deal with the company.
What amazes is that the PER base ran for as long as it did, never made money from day one!
But not only that did you not read your conditions fro going to another base.
What is it with you sandgropers! so parochial ! always thinking that there is an eastern state conspiracy.
Get over it! the PER base was never viable! and you're so lucky that the FAAA was able to secure your jobs.
What is really annoying that the vast majority of SYD base crew are subsidising YOU!
Hmm I understand your frustration however I disagree that the FAAA have sat back and done nothing!.
If it wasn't for the FAAA you would not even have a job now. they have negotiated the transfer of f/a to SYD and MEL.
And at least secured your job.
If you are going to blame anyone then direct your anger at the Domestic FAAA, they are the ones that did the deal with the company.
What amazes is that the PER base ran for as long as it did, never made money from day one!
But not only that did you not read your conditions fro going to another base.
What is it with you sandgropers! so parochial ! always thinking that there is an eastern state conspiracy.
Get over it! the PER base was never viable! and you're so lucky that the FAAA was able to secure your jobs.
What is really annoying that the vast majority of SYD base crew are subsidising YOU!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingAround...... you said:
"If the FAAA were serious, they would have made the clause a 'majority in every base' clause, oh but sorry, we are only focussing on SYD aint we !"
Mate, you are obviously 1 of those members who doesn't understand anything, no matter what rational argument is presented to you.I can understand your anger at QF and its indecision about Perth, however there is no point blaming the FAAA.
Your emoloyer is QANTAS not the FAAA. QANTAS DETERMINES ITS FLYING SCHEDULE AND ITS USE OF ITS AIRCRAFT NOT THE FAAA.
ANY RATIONAL PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT QF WILL APPLY ITS AIRCRAFT TO PORTS WHERE IT MAKES MONEY...IT DOESN'T DO SO TO MAKE EMPLOYEES HAPPY.
WHILST THIS MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVES, IT IS UNAVOIDABLY THE FACT...... AND AS I SAID EARLIER THERE IS NO MAGIC THAT CAN ALTER THAT FACT.
YOU ARE VERY BITTER, AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU LASH OUT AT ANYONE.
YOU NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND IF YOU ARE SO UNHAPPY WITH THE FAAA BECAUSE OF YOUR IGNORANCE ABOUT ISSUES...JUST RESIGN!
Furthemore no one is resigning from the FAAA, especially from the smaller bases, because people in the smaller bases are the very people that will need help if Base closures are announced.The notion that the FAAA is somehow only working for the interests of sydney crew is absurd,,,,, we all work under a national EBA and base location is irrelevant.
Currently, the FAAA officials are voting on a restructure proposed by MM that will abolish the Branch structure and lead to only 1 national body.
Hopefully, this will finally lead to parochialism within the FAAA membership being eliminated once and for all.
Finally, FlingAround you are symptomatic of what is wrong with a tiny element of our crew...... you do not understand the issues, you make baseless and ignorant assertions, you spread inaccurate information and you lash out at those that are actually trying to assist your case.
I suggest you immediately resign from the FAAA, but do not come running back to the FAAA after a possible base closure is announced in Perth and QF tries to deal with you in a "nasty" way.
STAND UP FOR YOUR STUPID AND ILL INFORMED VIEWPOINT... RESIGN FROM THE FAAA AND TAKE YOUR CHANCES.
"If the FAAA were serious, they would have made the clause a 'majority in every base' clause, oh but sorry, we are only focussing on SYD aint we !"
Mate, you are obviously 1 of those members who doesn't understand anything, no matter what rational argument is presented to you.I can understand your anger at QF and its indecision about Perth, however there is no point blaming the FAAA.
Your emoloyer is QANTAS not the FAAA. QANTAS DETERMINES ITS FLYING SCHEDULE AND ITS USE OF ITS AIRCRAFT NOT THE FAAA.
ANY RATIONAL PERSON SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT QF WILL APPLY ITS AIRCRAFT TO PORTS WHERE IT MAKES MONEY...IT DOESN'T DO SO TO MAKE EMPLOYEES HAPPY.
WHILST THIS MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVES, IT IS UNAVOIDABLY THE FACT...... AND AS I SAID EARLIER THERE IS NO MAGIC THAT CAN ALTER THAT FACT.
YOU ARE VERY BITTER, AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU LASH OUT AT ANYONE.
YOU NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND IF YOU ARE SO UNHAPPY WITH THE FAAA BECAUSE OF YOUR IGNORANCE ABOUT ISSUES...JUST RESIGN!
Furthemore no one is resigning from the FAAA, especially from the smaller bases, because people in the smaller bases are the very people that will need help if Base closures are announced.The notion that the FAAA is somehow only working for the interests of sydney crew is absurd,,,,, we all work under a national EBA and base location is irrelevant.
Currently, the FAAA officials are voting on a restructure proposed by MM that will abolish the Branch structure and lead to only 1 national body.
Hopefully, this will finally lead to parochialism within the FAAA membership being eliminated once and for all.
Finally, FlingAround you are symptomatic of what is wrong with a tiny element of our crew...... you do not understand the issues, you make baseless and ignorant assertions, you spread inaccurate information and you lash out at those that are actually trying to assist your case.
I suggest you immediately resign from the FAAA, but do not come running back to the FAAA after a possible base closure is announced in Perth and QF tries to deal with you in a "nasty" way.
STAND UP FOR YOUR STUPID AND ILL INFORMED VIEWPOINT... RESIGN FROM THE FAAA AND TAKE YOUR CHANCES.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian1: thank you for a couple of great posts. We need more posts like yours which are factual and tell it like it is.
FlyinAround: you're not speaking using logic, but emotion. I understand it must be frustrating for you, but as previously mentioned, the FAAA can only do so much - they are not miracle workers and they do not run the company. Personally, I think you're lucky you're getting as much support as you are. My understanding is that your base is very weak and many of you would not have supported the union and your fellow crew if we had taken industial action last year. You are the ones who would have let us down, and a lot of it is to do with your poor-cousin-to-the-eastern-states attitude. Perth crew: "London Base, who cares? WE don't fly there anyway!" Stop complaining.
Jet_Black_Monaro (a westie?): you're not a QF employee and you have nothing useful to offer this forum. Every post of yours is critical, negative and spiteful. You don't even understand many of our issues or the way the the majority of QF crew feel. I assure you, nearly all QF longhaul crew are against the LHR base (though not necessarily the people in the base). As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the EBA does not support a LHR base, it merely provides a cap on the number of overseas based crew. The union realised it would be virtually impossible to attempt to stop the base. A shame, large-scale industial action could have been interesting
Anyway, JBM, go and start your own Virgin Blue thread. Nobody loves you here.
FlyinAround: you're not speaking using logic, but emotion. I understand it must be frustrating for you, but as previously mentioned, the FAAA can only do so much - they are not miracle workers and they do not run the company. Personally, I think you're lucky you're getting as much support as you are. My understanding is that your base is very weak and many of you would not have supported the union and your fellow crew if we had taken industial action last year. You are the ones who would have let us down, and a lot of it is to do with your poor-cousin-to-the-eastern-states attitude. Perth crew: "London Base, who cares? WE don't fly there anyway!" Stop complaining.
Jet_Black_Monaro (a westie?): you're not a QF employee and you have nothing useful to offer this forum. Every post of yours is critical, negative and spiteful. You don't even understand many of our issues or the way the the majority of QF crew feel. I assure you, nearly all QF longhaul crew are against the LHR base (though not necessarily the people in the base). As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the EBA does not support a LHR base, it merely provides a cap on the number of overseas based crew. The union realised it would be virtually impossible to attempt to stop the base. A shame, large-scale industial action could have been interesting
Anyway, JBM, go and start your own Virgin Blue thread. Nobody loves you here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GUARDIAN 1 GOOD ON YOU!
about time someone is countering the misinformation on here with thorough and accurate info and reasoned argument.
I reckon i think i might know who you are.... and if it is you i think its great.
Its time that our membership realised that we are encountering extremely difficult times. QF has leaked to the media (see SYDNEY MORNING HERALD PAGE 1... 24 AUGUST) that Jetstar will be used internationally, we know Australian Airlines is considerably cheaper than Long Haul and the same is the case with Short Haul.
Its great that the FAAA is in competent hands... this leadership is the best ever. I have contacts with senior QF management in a private capacity and they respect the capacity of the current FAAA.
The comment was made to me "we don't laugh at them any more like we used to".
Its great to see that the majority of our crew support the FAAA and its great to see that the FAAA are dealing with us as responsible adults and asking us to support measures like the JFK dispensation in order to make sure our flying is protected.
There are some fools around as demonstrated by the innane comments made by some in here, but i believe the vast bulk of our crew are pretty sensible.
about time someone is countering the misinformation on here with thorough and accurate info and reasoned argument.
I reckon i think i might know who you are.... and if it is you i think its great.
Its time that our membership realised that we are encountering extremely difficult times. QF has leaked to the media (see SYDNEY MORNING HERALD PAGE 1... 24 AUGUST) that Jetstar will be used internationally, we know Australian Airlines is considerably cheaper than Long Haul and the same is the case with Short Haul.
Its great that the FAAA is in competent hands... this leadership is the best ever. I have contacts with senior QF management in a private capacity and they respect the capacity of the current FAAA.
The comment was made to me "we don't laugh at them any more like we used to".
Its great to see that the majority of our crew support the FAAA and its great to see that the FAAA are dealing with us as responsible adults and asking us to support measures like the JFK dispensation in order to make sure our flying is protected.
There are some fools around as demonstrated by the innane comments made by some in here, but i believe the vast bulk of our crew are pretty sensible.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well why is there so much crap being directed towards the people in the LHR base, with stupid games and big attempts to try and undermine them. I know of several people up there who have personally copped a lot of abuse from some crew, yet are they the ones who caused the damage, or are they further eroding conditions?
The faaa supported access for australian crew to the base, so perhaps they should therefore encourage people to direct their hostilities towards more appropriate areas. Personal anger directed towards people who took the base won't solve anything. It justs seeks to further divide crew.
Good to see all the union heavies adding something more to this discussion than the usual drivel and personal insults it had degenerated into.
The faaa supported access for australian crew to the base, so perhaps they should therefore encourage people to direct their hostilities towards more appropriate areas. Personal anger directed towards people who took the base won't solve anything. It justs seeks to further divide crew.
Good to see all the union heavies adding something more to this discussion than the usual drivel and personal insults it had degenerated into.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by White Pointer:
The faaa supported access for australian crew to the base, so perhaps they should therefore encourage people to direct their hostilities towards more appropriate areas. Personal anger directed towards people who took the base won't solve anything. It justs seeks to further divide crew.
The faaa supported access for australian crew to the base, so perhaps they should therefore encourage people to direct their hostilities towards more appropriate areas. Personal anger directed towards people who took the base won't solve anything. It justs seeks to further divide crew.
I hope I don't get flamed for this, but I personally don't have a problem with the individual crew members in the London base, even the ones ex-Aus. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that the London base exists, and therefore a problem with QF management. Sure, I want to see the company do well and make good profits, but not at the detriment to my pay and working conditions, especially when we are being forced to tighten our belts while at the same time, GD and his gang are receiving unhealthy and ludicrous bonuses and wages.
As an aside, I watched 60 minutes last Sunday. They did a story on a HUGE shipbuilding yard in Korea. You should have seen the size of the ships, not to mention the yard! So many employees, and popping out one ship every 36 hours! Unbelieveable! You would expect these people to be on very low wages, but no - a common labourer was earning USD$50,000 a year! But here's the best bit: the boss (I can't remember his title, but the equivalent of a CEO) was only on 3-4 times that wage! Nothing like the ridiculous amounts we see our western CEOs receiving. All in all, theirs is a much fairer system.
It’s unjustifiable to pay a single EMPLOYEE of any company the kind of money that these CEOs earn. I just hope that things will change one day.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Out
You have still not answered my post about the conditions of which the company insists that you agree to if you apply for the LHR base..If you want to take such risks and pay cuts...then it's on your head
You have still not answered my post about the conditions of which the company insists that you agree to if you apply for the LHR base..If you want to take such risks and pay cuts...then it's on your head
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is further to my above post, just to settle the issue of the FAAA's "support" of the London base. Clauses 12 and 13 of EBA 7 are the only clauses where London is mentioned at all:
There is nothing there to support the London base. The only real references to London are protections for Australian based crew in the form of the cap (870) and exclusive access to London 7 times a week for Aussie crew.
The union has done nothing to help or secure any special arrangements for any crew taking the London base, and nor should they have. If they had, then they would have been seen to be supporting the base.
I hope this clears things up.
PS: JBM, we still don't love you, however, if you are still lurking, please read the above carefully, as you continually insist that the FAAA does support the base, based on them having signed this EBA. Read the entire EBA if you'd like. I have. There is no other mention of the London base in this or any other EBA.
12 OVERSEAS BASES
12.1 This clause replaces Clause 17 of EBA VI, that in turn replaced
clause 68 of EBA IV and Clause 23 of EBA V.
12.2 In the event that Qantas Airways Limited decides to open
additional overseas base(s) with Long Haul cabin crew, the
Company will consult with the Association 3 months prior to
opening the base.
12.3 For the life of this Agreement, the Company commits to ensuring
that the number of crew employed in overseas bases will be no
more than 870 FTE including crew employed in the category of
Customer Service Manager and Customer Service Supervisor in
the London base.
13 ALLOCATION OF AUSTRALIAN BASED LONG HAUL CREW TO
THE LONDON ROUTE
In the context of Qantas flights being crewed from overseas bases, for
the life of this Agreement, Australian based long haul crew will, on a
planned basis:
• have access to the Australia London route for the period of the
phased start up of the London base to more than seven flights
per week; and
• have exclusive access to the Australia London route to six flights
per week for the period July to October 2005, increasing to no
less than seven flights per week from November 2005.
12.1 This clause replaces Clause 17 of EBA VI, that in turn replaced
clause 68 of EBA IV and Clause 23 of EBA V.
12.2 In the event that Qantas Airways Limited decides to open
additional overseas base(s) with Long Haul cabin crew, the
Company will consult with the Association 3 months prior to
opening the base.
12.3 For the life of this Agreement, the Company commits to ensuring
that the number of crew employed in overseas bases will be no
more than 870 FTE including crew employed in the category of
Customer Service Manager and Customer Service Supervisor in
the London base.
13 ALLOCATION OF AUSTRALIAN BASED LONG HAUL CREW TO
THE LONDON ROUTE
In the context of Qantas flights being crewed from overseas bases, for
the life of this Agreement, Australian based long haul crew will, on a
planned basis:
• have access to the Australia London route for the period of the
phased start up of the London base to more than seven flights
per week; and
• have exclusive access to the Australia London route to six flights
per week for the period July to October 2005, increasing to no
less than seven flights per week from November 2005.
The union has done nothing to help or secure any special arrangements for any crew taking the London base, and nor should they have. If they had, then they would have been seen to be supporting the base.
I hope this clears things up.
PS: JBM, we still don't love you, however, if you are still lurking, please read the above carefully, as you continually insist that the FAAA does support the base, based on them having signed this EBA. Read the entire EBA if you'd like. I have. There is no other mention of the London base in this or any other EBA.
Last edited by Flugbegleiter; 25th Aug 2005 at 06:28.