EBA & IR Issues in Australia (Not for those easily offended!)

[Mr Seatback 2]

I stand corrected re: length of slip time.

"Although AO have their own management - QF dictate where AO goes and what they do."

Maybe that's the problem? If AO were allowed to cut loose and expand of their own free will (admittedly, without competing with QF), they might be even more successful?

Jetstar, by comparison (and not saying one is better than the other, I might add), have expanded into destinations not previously served by QF in it's own form (such as Hervey Bay and Avalon).

Perhaps if AO were allowed to be AO (and not QF's little brother), they'd have more chance of making profit?!

Not saying AO hasn't helped QF in reducing costs - I'm not questioning how low your costs are...what I am questioning is how well you're managed...

Then again - aren't we all asking that question in this very thread?!!

"Welcome aboard Jetstar International flight JQ666 to Honolulu. This is a Jetstar service operated by Australian Airlines on behalf of Qantas."

Never a truer word said in jest.

[prunezeuss]

Qantas Juggernaut

The realities:
Ultra Long Range Aircraft are our in immediate future.
!7 hr tours of duty are in our immediate future
Jetstar will one day rival Qantas mainline in size
AUstralian Airlines(in its current form)is living on borrowed time.
We should not stick our heads in the sand
We should not fight amongst ourselves.
We should negotiate the best possible terms and conditions for ourselves
We should therefore support/direct the FAAA to this achievable outcome.
The Qantas juggernaut is gaining momentum...we either negotiate or we get rolled over.
Now is make or break time.
A VR is coming together with abolition of the CSS position on 767 and Airbus.
Either leave or negotiate for the best possible outcome

[RedTBar]

PruneZeuss,
I agree totally that hub busting aircraft are coming and that we will be doing 20 plus hours long range sectors but not 20 hour plus multi sector flights....

So the question remains,are you in favour of the JFK dispensation or not?

Despite what a lot of people think,WE ARE THE FAAA not the elected officials,who are there to represent us.

[qcc2]

long range

lhr-syd - via stopover asia -lhr done by london crew. simple math cheaper, no long range, with thai spices added. on the american runs only if another competitor starts flying to OZ from other ports then lax or sfo. got to use the A380 somewhere.

red tbar like your math re jfk shuttle. makes sense.

[Pegasus747]

NYC SHUTTLE.

The only think that i think is being left out of the calculations is the fact that the company is saving manpower costs. If my thinking is right you would need more than one crew so it wouldnt just be the slipping costs it would be saving the additional crew in its entirety..

I am no bean counter but its seems that there would be a huge saving for QF there

[prunezeuss]

JFK Shuttle...not worried

The shuttle will die a natural death...the northern NYC winter will see to that.
Aw Gee Geoof ..we forgot about the weather.Duh!!!

[Crusty Demon]

QCC2 your post on the previous page takes aim at a certain group of pilots. What is your problem with what a second officer gets paid? How does it relate to your conditions?

As to the pilot group running the airline, get real.

[qcc2]

pretty good deal

crusty not aiming at pilots (admits it sounds a bit sacarstic), according to my recent trips this second officer base has raised some tensions. i think it a pretty good outcome for them. looks like aipa is doing their job(even if their is a push to get rid of their president). and running qf , just look at the current rosters,trips, A330 crew rest with IFE (even if the deputy chief pilot wants to rip the screens out). pilots want pilots end up getting it (just jealous they have decent representation). dreaming of one day sh/lh have one voice and represent all divisions. the sooner that happens the more balanced the outcome for all cabin crew.

[RedTBar]

Pegasus747

I can see what your thinking and on the surface that makes sense but if you think about it,when you get back to LA you are slipping for more than one night (and up to 85 hours )so any saving in crewing from the shuttle is negated by slipping longer in LA again.

No word yet from guardian1 or the faaa leadership who I voted for last year!

Will they release a newsletter with the arguments for and against the dispensation?

[lowerlobe]

I agree with redTBar on this one,it is too important to just leave to a few union meetings,there should be a vote.

We all know what the company's motives are and it makes sense to get a second opinion from another legal source

[RedTBar]

Guardian1 or someone else in the faaa ....I'm still waiting for a response..!!!!

[qcc2]

more cost cutting proposals

since we all know management likes reading/posting on this forum here is a proposal to save more money.
get rid of all base managers/ visitors in the uk/nz/mel/bne/syd/bkk
set up a a global center (a la global life line or IOC center at level 3) you can cost effective manage all domestic and global operation. lets face it most times other then normal office hours there is no one attending any problems/issues anyway. other issues now can be handled by the IOC centre at level 3 anyway. that should save a bundle.

[RedTBar]

qcc2,

Not a bad idea,how about if they outsource this center to India or the Philipines as American Express did,they could outsource Crew Scheduling as well...

[Guardian1]

RedTBar.......

Sorry mate, wasn't deliberately avoiding you but as you know we are all busy with both work and personal issues.

Red it's important that you do not misunderstand what i'm trying to convey in here on various issues, including the JFK dispensation. You have a thoughtful approach to things and therefore i'm hoping that you can be convinced about issues, including my stance in relation to the JFK dispensation, when you have the benefit of ALL the information and particularly when the implications of withdrawing the JFK dispensation are understood.

You outlined a brief analysis of cost relating to the JFK shuttle e.g. overtime rates, to try to make a case that QF is not saving money by using us on the JFK SHUTTLE or that it at least would save more if it used o/s base crew to do the shuttle.

You are correct, QF would save more, but that is not the point. There are several reasons why QF would still be interested in a dispensation from the FAAA.

Come along to the meetings next week (FAAA meetings) and im sure there will be a detailed explanation. It is too difficult to explain the complexities in here.

Im glad you are an FAAA supporter, and i'm convinced you will continue to be, because everyone will shortly understand that the motivating factor of the FAAA is to protect peoples jobs. THAT WILL BECOME OBVIOUS TO ALL VERY SHORTLY.

Can i say that your call and some others for some "legal" advice is somewhat puzzling. The FAAA constantly gets legal advice and other advice that cannot be published, because it would be counter productive to our( i.e. crew's) interests if such advice became public knowledge. I need to ad, the FAAA employs 2 lawyers who are our industrial officers and also gets specialist legal advice on an ongoing basis.

I agree with the recent newsletter issued by the FAAA that said that we should exercise a bit of trust and realise that the FAAA actually knows full well what it is doing.

The dispensation is all about protecting our flying and ensuring compulsory redundancies do not hit Long Haul as they are about to hit other areas... e.g. last week 200 ground jobs were made redundant.

Red T Bar... without wanting to dissect everything you say.... the actual average of the shuttles is 15 hours. This is based on actual flying data for last year. Ring the FAAA they will confirm this to you.

Also, so that there is no confusion... QF will use kiwi crew to do the shuttles if the dispensation is withdrawn. That means access to LAX will be severely curtailed for us.

Not a good outcome i would have thought. There will also be a trickle down effect as the dislodged LAX CREW TAKE OTHER FLYING AWAY FROM LESS JUNIOR CREW.

Further, what a terrible signal it will send to QF and particularly Geoff Dixon who already think our crew are dinosaurs that cannot comprehend the economic realities in this industry.To complicate it further we are also the most expensive crew in QF.

What do some of you think will then happen as QF and Short Haul commence their EBA negotiations? They just need to further change their "regional" flying clause to an all embracing "international" flying clause and what will happen to us then?

As i said, this is a very complex issue and the FAAA leadership are in a far better position to guide us through it than the most well intentioned person in here.

Remember, this FAAA leadership reversed the failures of EBA6.... they know what they are doing and more importantly they are totally up-front and will of course explain the whole issue to the members IMMINENTLY.

[RedTBar]

Guardian1,

Thats exactly what I am saying:

1: The company is not saving money on this.

2: The company would save more using AKL crew which they do not need our permission...So why aren't they???

3: The company obviously wants us to give permanent dispensation....BUT WHY???

4: If we give dispensation,what is to stop the company giving the shuttle to the AKL crew anyway?

5: If you agree that there is more to this issue than saving money on the JFK flights , why can't you tell us here?

6: I still believe that there is an issue here regarding a precedent being set..and we all know that the company will exploit any point they can at a future stage

7: There has to be a postal vote on this,as a lot of crew will not be able to make it to a union meeting

[Guardian1]

RedTBar and JFK

Red it would be more efficient and less time consuming if we spoke directly :-) .

In order of your points in your previous post, i would say this :

1) The Company is of course CURRENTLY saving money on the JFK shuttle as compared to the previous arrrangement of slipping crew in New York.

2)It would however save more money if it were to use O/S based crew, which it will use if the dispensation is withdrawn. It is not using those o/s based crew to do the shuttle at the moment whilst our dispensation is operating. WHY ISN'T IT? WELL BECAUSE OF SEVERAL FACTORS INCLUDING:

i- there is an agreement that was struck in the EBA7 negotiations that prevent QF employing CSM OR CSS positions in overseas bases apart from LHR. This means there would still need to be an australian CSM and CSS on board the shuttle.

ii- operationally, the concentration of Kiwi crew in this instance to do the shuttle may not be that desirable to QF.

iii- other factors that would not be in the interests of our crew to discuss publicly in here.

3) The answer to this is simple. QF want an arrangement that reduces costs on the shuttle to make it worth doing. THE QF POSITION IS VERY SIMPLE, EITHER WE CAN GIVE THEM RELIEF OR THEY WILL UTILISE O/S BASED CREW TO GET THAT RELIEF.

4) Nothing stops them from doing that. However, i suggest to you that would be a silly move. If QF want relief and we give them that relief then there would be no reason to use the O/S based crew. I hope that makes sense?

5) I have repeatedly stated there are far more important considerations for crew that relate to to this issue than saving money for QF. These considerations are why the dispensation should be embraced by crew , namely:

i- we are indicating to QF we want international flying

ii- we are indicating to QF we are not inflexible and thereby not giving QF the incentive and excuse to use "others" to take our flying

iii- behind the scenes several crucial events are taking place including decisions to use Jetstar internationally, decisions about routes for Australian Airlines and QF management are closely looking at the viability of the International Division.

iv- in an environment where "others" can easily do our flying we have to be careful that we do not commit suicide. Redundancy would be a terrible outcome for our crew if we take a foolish and inflexible approach.

6) The dispensation is done under the facilitative provision of our EBA. There is no legal precedent established as you suggest. The JFK dispensation is given on a without prejudice basis. Our EBA rights, in this instance the multi sector limitation of 14 hours remains intact and not under any threat.

7) The FAAA has indicated there will be consultation with crew. People should read newsletters because it was clearly put by the FAAA that the members will decide that issue. There has never been any suggestion that this issue will be decided upon at the members meetings which are often attended by small numbers only.

It is a good thing that we are more questioning of the Company and the FAAA. The FAAA leadership has constantly said that people should question so that we are never again fooled by elected FAAA officials like we were in EBA6.


Remember though, it is the current FAAA people that led the attack on EBA6, it is the current people that have told us to scrutinise proposals and it is the current people that have reversed the failures of EBA6 . I believe that the current FAAA deserve to be listen to, to have their case put to us and then we can decide.

I know 1 thing for sure, they will not lie to us.

[Pro Golfer 69]

Brilliantly put as always Guardian. All that’s needed now is to get that info out to everyone. There’s no doubt that the current FAAA reps are doing a fantastic job. At the end of the day it's about preserving the flying therefore preserving jobs and the current FAAA team are ensuring that!

[jettlager]

Guardian1,

so when do we get an opportunity to vote NO ?

[captainrats]

Voting no...

If the no vote gets up where to from there....?
How about we think 5 steps ahead and not just one.

[jettlager]

I'm voting NO because I don't feel that ANYONE should be subjected to this MULTI-SECTOR 16+ hour TOD.

This sector IS THE ISSUE.

The rest is just bull****...............................

Jettlager

P.S. Its illegal for the locals for a reason.