QANTAS discussions (All Bases) - Merged
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QfRegional
Why dont you go and get f...
Edited for abuse - westozflyer you're on the sh*t list - tread carefully!!
Dont get me started on your crew rest seats. You poor thing
Why dont you go and get f...
Edited for abuse - westozflyer you're on the sh*t list - tread carefully!!
Last edited by TightSlot; 10th Dec 2005 at 03:13.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK DISPENSATION
It's heartening to see that the vast bulk of LH crew are sensible and pragmatic unlike the few who come in here who would probably be even anti their own grandmothers. Fortunately, these people only represent a very small portion of LH crew.
Very sadly, whilst they are entitled to their views, it is clear they don't understand any of the issues whatsoever and they also constantly compound their ignorance and their lack of knowledege by deliberately lying as well.
Everything the FAAA has issued is completely accurate. The current FAAA officials are not interested in lying to anyone much less to its membership who elected it and for whom the FAAA has complete respect for and confidence in.
It's pathetic to see people suggest that the fatigue study commissioned by the FAAA and completed by Dr Drew Dawson from the Adelaide University is "mythical". The study was shown at the FAAA meetings and indeed several members who were interested have looked at it.
The FAAA indicated at those meetings any member wishing to look at the fatigue study can come to the FAAA Office and see it. No amount of hysterical bleating in this forum by the usual suspects(most of whom are the ex disgraced FAAA officials) will make the FAAA distribute publicly this confidential document.
Also , suggestions that the ballot could have been sent through the Australian Electoral Commission again just sadly show the complete lack of any understanding of how these processes operate. The AEC is not empowered to run internal union consultative ballots like the JFK vote.
The FAAA has its highest ever level of membership at this time. This is because of several factors including :-
1- the most competent officials ever who have delivered on their promises, particularly reversing MOST of the appalling failures of EBA6 .
2-THE membership trust and respect the current FAAA.
3-The members also know that Qantas respect the current FAAA leadership and the FAAA membership, because this was demonstrated last year when Qantas arrayed over a 1000 strike breakers to be used against the FAAA. (Unlike 2003 when they employed no strike breakers because they knew the wimps and no-hopers that they were dealing with at that time.)
4-Qantas has embarked on the most intensive use of disciplinary processes against cabin crew. The FAAA is the only body available to help members. Any non member will be carved up in this new environment as several already have been.
In light of the above, I would invite any in here who are so disgruntled and aggrieved to resign from the FAAA. That is your right and i would actively encourage you to do so.
The level of support for the FAAA is demonstrated by the fact there are no people queing up in anger to nominate against current officials in the FAAA election which is still running as we speak. Unlike the PILOTS Association, we have had no teams organised to nominate against the current elected officials.
The reason why no one has nominated is because the vast bulk of the membership know the FAAA is doing an excellent job in the current circumstances.
I often laugh when i read innane comments in here, because invariably they demonstrate and underscore why no one has nominated against the current officials , namely, there is no viable alternative put forward to the policies being adopted by the FAAA. THERE IS ONLY NONSENSE, AND IF ANYONE WHO SPROUTS THIS NONSENSE WAS TO STAND FOR ELECTION THEY WOULD BE MORE HUMILIATINGLY DEFEATED THAN THE PREVIOUS INCOMPETENTS WERE IN 2003 AND 2004.
Finally, its fantastic that during this last week phone calls to the FAAA and also email clearly indicate that the FAAA has the confidence of the membership. All the available feedback from several sources indicates a massive YES vote.
The FAAA leadership has always had confidence in the membership, thats why it has always been upfront with the members and treated them like adults.
The FAAA will continue to lead in the current difficult circumstances in the interests of all its members to protect International Flying and hence jobs.
No amount of hysterical reaction or blatant misinformation from a tiny trouble making element is going to deter the FAAA from making the right decisions.
The stakes are way too high.... peoples jobs are way too important .
Very sadly, whilst they are entitled to their views, it is clear they don't understand any of the issues whatsoever and they also constantly compound their ignorance and their lack of knowledege by deliberately lying as well.
Everything the FAAA has issued is completely accurate. The current FAAA officials are not interested in lying to anyone much less to its membership who elected it and for whom the FAAA has complete respect for and confidence in.
It's pathetic to see people suggest that the fatigue study commissioned by the FAAA and completed by Dr Drew Dawson from the Adelaide University is "mythical". The study was shown at the FAAA meetings and indeed several members who were interested have looked at it.
The FAAA indicated at those meetings any member wishing to look at the fatigue study can come to the FAAA Office and see it. No amount of hysterical bleating in this forum by the usual suspects(most of whom are the ex disgraced FAAA officials) will make the FAAA distribute publicly this confidential document.
Also , suggestions that the ballot could have been sent through the Australian Electoral Commission again just sadly show the complete lack of any understanding of how these processes operate. The AEC is not empowered to run internal union consultative ballots like the JFK vote.
The FAAA has its highest ever level of membership at this time. This is because of several factors including :-
1- the most competent officials ever who have delivered on their promises, particularly reversing MOST of the appalling failures of EBA6 .
2-THE membership trust and respect the current FAAA.
3-The members also know that Qantas respect the current FAAA leadership and the FAAA membership, because this was demonstrated last year when Qantas arrayed over a 1000 strike breakers to be used against the FAAA. (Unlike 2003 when they employed no strike breakers because they knew the wimps and no-hopers that they were dealing with at that time.)
4-Qantas has embarked on the most intensive use of disciplinary processes against cabin crew. The FAAA is the only body available to help members. Any non member will be carved up in this new environment as several already have been.
In light of the above, I would invite any in here who are so disgruntled and aggrieved to resign from the FAAA. That is your right and i would actively encourage you to do so.
The level of support for the FAAA is demonstrated by the fact there are no people queing up in anger to nominate against current officials in the FAAA election which is still running as we speak. Unlike the PILOTS Association, we have had no teams organised to nominate against the current elected officials.
The reason why no one has nominated is because the vast bulk of the membership know the FAAA is doing an excellent job in the current circumstances.
I often laugh when i read innane comments in here, because invariably they demonstrate and underscore why no one has nominated against the current officials , namely, there is no viable alternative put forward to the policies being adopted by the FAAA. THERE IS ONLY NONSENSE, AND IF ANYONE WHO SPROUTS THIS NONSENSE WAS TO STAND FOR ELECTION THEY WOULD BE MORE HUMILIATINGLY DEFEATED THAN THE PREVIOUS INCOMPETENTS WERE IN 2003 AND 2004.
Finally, its fantastic that during this last week phone calls to the FAAA and also email clearly indicate that the FAAA has the confidence of the membership. All the available feedback from several sources indicates a massive YES vote.
The FAAA leadership has always had confidence in the membership, thats why it has always been upfront with the members and treated them like adults.
The FAAA will continue to lead in the current difficult circumstances in the interests of all its members to protect International Flying and hence jobs.
No amount of hysterical reaction or blatant misinformation from a tiny trouble making element is going to deter the FAAA from making the right decisions.
The stakes are way too high.... peoples jobs are way too important .
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
westozflyer
Shouldnt that be eastozflyer? I can see where all that fighting got you - moved to the eastcoast. I wouldnt exactly call a 5-6 singapore out of Perth long haul either pet, isnt that what you do out of Perth!!
Point taken I am bowing down right now to the almightly long haul crew.
Next!!
Shouldnt that be eastozflyer? I can see where all that fighting got you - moved to the eastcoast. I wouldnt exactly call a 5-6 singapore out of Perth long haul either pet, isnt that what you do out of Perth!!
Point taken I am bowing down right now to the almightly long haul crew.
Next!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dunrootin Retirement Village
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Guardian1
Sadly once again your post is just long winded rhetoric and I need to take issue with you for the following ----
Your quote: the membership trust and respect the current faaa
Oh dear how wrong can you be. In all my years of flying I have never seen or heard so many crew make comments about how disillusioned they are with the attitude and appeasement of the current faaa.
Your quote: The members also know that Qantas respect the current faaa leadership.
If that is the case then why have the company placed six AKL based crew on the JFK flights from next bid period? I view this as a total lack of respect of crew and the faaa by the company and all this happening BEFORE the votes are counted. (Refer also to the faaa newsletter below of 23 March 2005) I'm also still seething at QF executive Kevin Browns interview on the ABC's 7:30 report a year ago whilst being questioned about the training of strikebreakers during our EBA discussions when he said "We won't be held to ransom by these people !! " That shows the level of respect for crew & the faaa.
You seem so cocky and assured that the yes vote will get up it begs the question has the result already been decided? Additionally what is the faaa's plan if the no vote gets up? Is there any such plan? I certainly respect that you are dealing with the company during difficult times of industrial relations but your bending over backwards attitude whilst crew are being treated with contempt by the company beggars belief !!
There also seems to be a lot of self congratulations and patting yourselves on the back and I feel it is timely to remind you that when Caesar's generals returned triumphantly to Rome that someone would walk behind the general and say "Remember thou art mortal and all glory is fleeting"
If you consider me to be a part of a tiny trouble making element than so be it. But you had better realise that this element has grown considerably these past six months. I expect the usual suspects will be rounded up to denounce my comments but I would simply say to crew reading this to look at the newsletter below and compare it with the current comments being made by the faaa. It is sadly self explanatory. Yes jobs are critical and the stakes are high and so are peoples lives and working conditions and as I approach the end of my career my hope is that those remaining can receive fair conditions from a fair minded company so that we can all enjoy the fruits of our labour in this great country instead of being harangued and abused by a greedy few at the top.
Unless there are written guarantees from the company that ALL positions will be filled by Australian based longhaul crew on the JFk shuttles then you owe it to yourselves to make a stand AND VOTE NO
23 March 2005
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.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division
Your quote: the membership trust and respect the current faaa
Oh dear how wrong can you be. In all my years of flying I have never seen or heard so many crew make comments about how disillusioned they are with the attitude and appeasement of the current faaa.
Your quote: The members also know that Qantas respect the current faaa leadership.
If that is the case then why have the company placed six AKL based crew on the JFK flights from next bid period? I view this as a total lack of respect of crew and the faaa by the company and all this happening BEFORE the votes are counted. (Refer also to the faaa newsletter below of 23 March 2005) I'm also still seething at QF executive Kevin Browns interview on the ABC's 7:30 report a year ago whilst being questioned about the training of strikebreakers during our EBA discussions when he said "We won't be held to ransom by these people !! " That shows the level of respect for crew & the faaa.
You seem so cocky and assured that the yes vote will get up it begs the question has the result already been decided? Additionally what is the faaa's plan if the no vote gets up? Is there any such plan? I certainly respect that you are dealing with the company during difficult times of industrial relations but your bending over backwards attitude whilst crew are being treated with contempt by the company beggars belief !!
There also seems to be a lot of self congratulations and patting yourselves on the back and I feel it is timely to remind you that when Caesar's generals returned triumphantly to Rome that someone would walk behind the general and say "Remember thou art mortal and all glory is fleeting"
If you consider me to be a part of a tiny trouble making element than so be it. But you had better realise that this element has grown considerably these past six months. I expect the usual suspects will be rounded up to denounce my comments but I would simply say to crew reading this to look at the newsletter below and compare it with the current comments being made by the faaa. It is sadly self explanatory. Yes jobs are critical and the stakes are high and so are peoples lives and working conditions and as I approach the end of my career my hope is that those remaining can receive fair conditions from a fair minded company so that we can all enjoy the fruits of our labour in this great country instead of being harangued and abused by a greedy few at the top.
Unless there are written guarantees from the company that ALL positions will be filled by Australian based longhaul crew on the JFk shuttles then you owe it to yourselves to make a stand AND VOTE NO
23 March 2005
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.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK
Front Pit.....
Well you must mix in very restricted senior circles because all the crew i fly with are generally supportive of the FAAA. As Guardian1 said, if there was this dissatisfaction with the FAAA that you referred to , then other people would have contested the FAAA elections that are occurring now.
I have voted for the 5 current FAAA officials in the Sydney LH base who were up for election and most people i've spoken to have as well. So where is this supposed disatisfaction?
It's pretty strange your argument (and those couple of others who must be your friends) about the JFK dispensation.
On 1 hand you guys say the JFK shuttle is so arduous and difficult that we should refuse dispensation (even though its completely bid for and usually by those of your high seniority) and then when it suits your silly arguments you demand we should fill all positions on these shuttles..... Which is it?
The FAAA is correct, some dinosaurs amongst crew just don't get it. The JFK dispensation is about signalling to Qantas that we don't want our flying going to others.
If we were to listen to you and the likes of lowerlobe, we would be saying...take even more of our flying away , take most of the LAX slots off us and give them to overseas based crew whilst we go to africa or mumbai.
What a lot of geniuses you guys are!
Thank God you guys are so isolated. If we listened to you, we'd all be on unemployment benefits.
Well you must mix in very restricted senior circles because all the crew i fly with are generally supportive of the FAAA. As Guardian1 said, if there was this dissatisfaction with the FAAA that you referred to , then other people would have contested the FAAA elections that are occurring now.
I have voted for the 5 current FAAA officials in the Sydney LH base who were up for election and most people i've spoken to have as well. So where is this supposed disatisfaction?
It's pretty strange your argument (and those couple of others who must be your friends) about the JFK dispensation.
On 1 hand you guys say the JFK shuttle is so arduous and difficult that we should refuse dispensation (even though its completely bid for and usually by those of your high seniority) and then when it suits your silly arguments you demand we should fill all positions on these shuttles..... Which is it?
The FAAA is correct, some dinosaurs amongst crew just don't get it. The JFK dispensation is about signalling to Qantas that we don't want our flying going to others.
If we were to listen to you and the likes of lowerlobe, we would be saying...take even more of our flying away , take most of the LAX slots off us and give them to overseas based crew whilst we go to africa or mumbai.
What a lot of geniuses you guys are!
Thank God you guys are so isolated. If we listened to you, we'd all be on unemployment benefits.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "The FAAA is correct, some dinosaurs amongst crew just don't get it. The JFK dispensation is about signalling to Qantas that we don't want our flying going to others."
So let me get this straight Einstein ,you gave the company a temporary dispensation to save jobs and they replace Australian crew with 6 AKL crew.
Now you want to give the company a permanent dispensation to give them even more jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
VOTE NO
So let me get this straight Einstein ,you gave the company a temporary dispensation to save jobs and they replace Australian crew with 6 AKL crew.
Now you want to give the company a permanent dispensation to give them even more jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
VOTE NO
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Noosa
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you sow ...... you shall reap!
Guardian 1 or should I say SR.................did you have a few too many cups of latte this morning ??????
None of the psycho babble in your post makes any sense to me.
Guardian 1 ....do not overestimate the feeling on this issue. If you believe its a done deal then you'll believe a big fat bloke in a red suit will get stuck in your chimney in 2 weeks time.
I mentioned "thuggery" in my last post. A mate of mine saw it for himself outside QCC the other day , when one of the FAAAA "officials"-L. J. ( everyones MAAAATE ) was using standover tactics driving home the YES vote with crew arriving home. His behaviour has been reported to the Visitors, but we know they'll do ZIP as they are sponsoring this YES vote .
Forgive me G-1 .............I just looked up Google to check to see if we are still living in a democratic country, where citizens/FAAA members may have a contrary view and exercise FREE SPEECH. For you to suggest those who would so brazenly endorse a NO vote should resign is OUTRAGEOUS.
Go back and read your FAAA constitution/charter !!!!!
Your response should be ..."OK you guys , you're voting NO-whatever ....thats your choice. NOT........
VOTE NO...................P--S OFF!!!!
One question that I would like you to answer Guardian 1-
WHO IS GOING TO OVERSEE THE VOTE COUNTING?????
Because I would bet my marbles that if the No vote got up then we would hear ................"YES."
Then we'll read.............."we told you so- you bunch of rogues........now we want you all to resign from the FAAA."
Wasn't their an Ad campaign a few years back......
"NO MEANS NO"
None of the psycho babble in your post makes any sense to me.
Guardian 1 ....do not overestimate the feeling on this issue. If you believe its a done deal then you'll believe a big fat bloke in a red suit will get stuck in your chimney in 2 weeks time.
I mentioned "thuggery" in my last post. A mate of mine saw it for himself outside QCC the other day , when one of the FAAAA "officials"-L. J. ( everyones MAAAATE ) was using standover tactics driving home the YES vote with crew arriving home. His behaviour has been reported to the Visitors, but we know they'll do ZIP as they are sponsoring this YES vote .
Forgive me G-1 .............I just looked up Google to check to see if we are still living in a democratic country, where citizens/FAAA members may have a contrary view and exercise FREE SPEECH. For you to suggest those who would so brazenly endorse a NO vote should resign is OUTRAGEOUS.
Go back and read your FAAA constitution/charter !!!!!
Your response should be ..."OK you guys , you're voting NO-whatever ....thats your choice. NOT........
VOTE NO...................P--S OFF!!!!
One question that I would like you to answer Guardian 1-
WHO IS GOING TO OVERSEE THE VOTE COUNTING?????
Because I would bet my marbles that if the No vote got up then we would hear ................"YES."
Then we'll read.............."we told you so- you bunch of rogues........now we want you all to resign from the FAAA."
Wasn't their an Ad campaign a few years back......
"NO MEANS NO"
Last edited by Wed Webbing Woop; 10th Dec 2005 at 07:44.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK
LOWERLOBE.........
what sort of medication are you on? If you aren't then you should be.
No wonder the FAAA makes references to dinosaurs because you typify who they are referring to.
You would prefer that the Company takes the other 9 slots from aussie crews as well on flights to LAX do you?
I'm ringing the union and asking them if they can expel dummies like you.
Your suggestion to vote no would result in "BOMBAY NOT LA" for crew. Please do us all a favour resign...... you are a menace.
what sort of medication are you on? If you aren't then you should be.
No wonder the FAAA makes references to dinosaurs because you typify who they are referring to.
You would prefer that the Company takes the other 9 slots from aussie crews as well on flights to LAX do you?
I'm ringing the union and asking them if they can expel dummies like you.
Your suggestion to vote no would result in "BOMBAY NOT LA" for crew. Please do us all a favour resign...... you are a menace.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote Counting
I rang the FAAA office on thursday and asked if members can be present when the envelopes are opened and counted and they advised me that they would have an independent person supervising the process and that any flight attendant that wanted to be there would not be stopped from being present.
I am on a trip when the count is on but i know a couple of people who would like to be there...give them a call and let them know you would like to be present so you can report back to us
I am on a trip when the count is on but i know a couple of people who would like to be there...give them a call and let them know you would like to be present so you can report back to us
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another topic!
Just let everyone know that Qantas are really in the festive season, they are now conducting searches again.
Crew inbound to HKG 7th dec were searched in the foyer.
New blitzes going to happen in SIN and elsewhere.
Its a great Xmas present from our employer.
What a bunch of Carnts.
Anyway enough of the NO and YES vote everyone has made up their minds.
Crew inbound to HKG 7th dec were searched in the foyer.
New blitzes going to happen in SIN and elsewhere.
Its a great Xmas present from our employer.
What a bunch of Carnts.
Anyway enough of the NO and YES vote everyone has made up their minds.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is for Ben Dover and the rest of the FAAA leaders.
Let’s imagine the impossible and that is that you will answer some questions instead of the mind-numbing invective that you subject us to with monotonous regularity
Do you deny that:
1: That you without consulting the union membership gave the company temporary dispensation with the stated aim of saving Australian jobs?
2: That you promised to hold a ballot and reflect to the company the wishes of the union membership before the conclusion of BP 240 not nearly a year later...
3: That the company has on numerous occasions has attacked and sought to undermine our working conditions since the signing of our current EBA, the latest attack being the sale of crew rest seats.
4: That the company has shown complete and utter disdain for the faaa and it’s members by replacing 6 Australian jobs which is 40% of the crew complement ,with foreign based crew irrespective of the temporary dispensation you gave that was supposed to protect those very jobs.
5: That the company does not require a dispensation to replace any crew and therefore makes the dispensation superfluous.
With all the points made above, why on earth would you contemplate giving the company a permanent dispensation when the concept behind the temporary dispensation has proven to be completely wrong and flawed since conception?
Why would the faaa respond and accept blackmail from the company.?.We should never ever give in to blackmail.
The company can at any time replace the rest of the crew , so making the dispensation redundant.Therefore any sane person has to ask the question, “Why does the company want a dispensation” ?
The faaa has vowed to do everything to protect our jobs but this has not stopped the company from replacing us in the next bid period .the faaa has not only dug a hole big enough to nearly bury us but now is hiring an excavator to ensure that the hole that we are in is so deep that we will never be able to extricate ourselves.
How much more is the faaa willing to give up to save us from the company .At this rate we need to be saved from the faaa more than we need protection from the company!!!
There comes a time when you have to stand up and defend yourselves .If the company wants us to be more cost efficient then let’s sit down with them and negotiate.
Ben Dover and the other leaders of the faaa have shown that they have studied the French military tacticians of the Second World War for their management style...
This means that,
1: You have an over inflated ego and suffer from grand delusions of your own ability.
2: You somehow believe that your enemy is fearful of you and respects you.
3: That it is never wise to antagonize your enemy with any action so the best course is to surrender immediately at the first sign of any hostility.
4: Organise white flags and lubricant for your troops to be able to use at any time.
5: If surrender fails then run and hide and tell everyone that it is a strategic withdrawal
Ben Dover and the others in the faaa are bending over backwards to help the company bury us once and for all….
Eden99's comments about Bombay not LA show that like other greedy individuals he thinks this is just about overtime and to hell with the consequences..THE JUST WANT MONEY regardless of what they do to our jobs..This is the danger of their simplistic naive ideas
VOTE NO to the infantile and unreasonable attitude of both the company and the faaa…
VOTE NO
Let’s imagine the impossible and that is that you will answer some questions instead of the mind-numbing invective that you subject us to with monotonous regularity
Do you deny that:
1: That you without consulting the union membership gave the company temporary dispensation with the stated aim of saving Australian jobs?
2: That you promised to hold a ballot and reflect to the company the wishes of the union membership before the conclusion of BP 240 not nearly a year later...
3: That the company has on numerous occasions has attacked and sought to undermine our working conditions since the signing of our current EBA, the latest attack being the sale of crew rest seats.
4: That the company has shown complete and utter disdain for the faaa and it’s members by replacing 6 Australian jobs which is 40% of the crew complement ,with foreign based crew irrespective of the temporary dispensation you gave that was supposed to protect those very jobs.
5: That the company does not require a dispensation to replace any crew and therefore makes the dispensation superfluous.
With all the points made above, why on earth would you contemplate giving the company a permanent dispensation when the concept behind the temporary dispensation has proven to be completely wrong and flawed since conception?
Why would the faaa respond and accept blackmail from the company.?.We should never ever give in to blackmail.
The company can at any time replace the rest of the crew , so making the dispensation redundant.Therefore any sane person has to ask the question, “Why does the company want a dispensation” ?
The faaa has vowed to do everything to protect our jobs but this has not stopped the company from replacing us in the next bid period .the faaa has not only dug a hole big enough to nearly bury us but now is hiring an excavator to ensure that the hole that we are in is so deep that we will never be able to extricate ourselves.
How much more is the faaa willing to give up to save us from the company .At this rate we need to be saved from the faaa more than we need protection from the company!!!
There comes a time when you have to stand up and defend yourselves .If the company wants us to be more cost efficient then let’s sit down with them and negotiate.
Ben Dover and the other leaders of the faaa have shown that they have studied the French military tacticians of the Second World War for their management style...
This means that,
1: You have an over inflated ego and suffer from grand delusions of your own ability.
2: You somehow believe that your enemy is fearful of you and respects you.
3: That it is never wise to antagonize your enemy with any action so the best course is to surrender immediately at the first sign of any hostility.
4: Organise white flags and lubricant for your troops to be able to use at any time.
5: If surrender fails then run and hide and tell everyone that it is a strategic withdrawal
Ben Dover and the others in the faaa are bending over backwards to help the company bury us once and for all….
Eden99's comments about Bombay not LA show that like other greedy individuals he thinks this is just about overtime and to hell with the consequences..THE JUST WANT MONEY regardless of what they do to our jobs..This is the danger of their simplistic naive ideas
VOTE NO to the infantile and unreasonable attitude of both the company and the faaa…
VOTE NO
Last edited by lowerlobe; 10th Dec 2005 at 19:55.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK AND ANSWERS TO LOWERLOBES QUIZ
Lowerlobe i can only anwer for myself and not the FAAA and its leaders but i hope my answers will help with those questions you pose.My answers will i think, be in tune with those to whom you refer to.
I have to say the answers to all of what you continually raise has been given on many ocassions officially by the FAAA, but even for someone who obviously follows and thinks about issues you are nevertheless not listening too closely.
OK HERE GOES:-
In order of your numbering
1) yes the dispensation was given specifically to "save aussie jobs". The more important part of why it was given was to indicate to very senior Qantas people that the L/H Division AND THE L/H FAAA are prepared to be more flexible in their approach so that critical decisions are not made by very senior people in QF to effectively wind down L/H. Rather than you maintaining there is no threat...... look to Perth because that is what is facing all of us now.
2) In relation to this point your comments again show that you do not read carefully what is written, or alternatively you just see and say whatever aids your argument. The 25 March FAAA newsletter said this............. "The dispensation will operate for 2 bid periods, BP 239 and BP 240.
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. "
So at no time did the FAAA say dispensation would be withdrawn before BP240 OR THAT A BALLOT WOULD OCCUR BEFORE BP 240.
What is said in that newsletter was that the dispensation would be reviewed following BP 240 if "cabin crew feedback indicated majority opposition". There was hardly any negative feedback to the FAAA , quite the opposite and the dispensation was continued. Also a Ballot was never mentioned by the FAAA until a newsletter dated 22 September.
So if you wish to be treated seriously lowerlobe you need to tell the truth rather than inventing stuff. I have no problem with your anti -JFK views but i have a huge problem with anyone attempting to mislead .
3-The Company and this union as indeed any other Qantas union has disputes on interpretation of agreeements or EBA clauses. That is nothing new and thats why we have a dispute settlement clause in our EBA that requires both parties to go to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when we disagree about something, like the crew rest issue. The AIRC then decides who is correct not me or you lowerlobe.
4-Nothing to do with disdain. All to do with maximising profits and using cheaper alternatives. Again this is what employers do , its not something remarkable. That is why the FAAA is saying we have to be flexible or otherwise QF will simply continue to send our work to cheaper alternatives and you and I will be made redundant.
5- Correct it doesn't. But this is where you continually miss the point. The preferred option for QF is to have a dispensation from the FAAA, because it gives greater profitability to the marginal nature of flying to JFK. THAT IS NO SECRET.
However, if we revoke the dispensation , QF does not care because it will then deploy all kiwi crews on the 5 flights to JFK per week.
That means all those extra slots that are taken by aussie crews to LAX will be taken by Kiwi crew. That means good LAX flying will be taken from us and our crew will be left doing Africa's , Mumbais etc instead.
Revoking the dispensation is saying to Qantas that they need to plan to give more international flying to Short Haul or the new Jetstar because L/H crew don't want to do it. Already we are way more expensive than everyone else and by refusing dispensation and generally not being prepared to be flexible Qantas will then act in a predictable business driven manner and marginalise L/H further.
Qantas does not need to sit down and negotiate anything... they are not asking to negotiate anything. They are asking for a dispensation but are saying if we dont provide it...then others will do the work.
Lowerlobe you and a few others need to understand that point as it is a critical point . Its unpalatable for all of us, but nevertheless it is the way it is.
There will need to be negotiations down the track...thats what the FAAA is signalling to its members but those negotiations will have to centre on narrowing the cost differentials between us and all the other cheaper cabin crew that QF employs.
So rather than getting annoyed at the FAAA that is trying to protect our jobs in this hostile environment...be annoyed at previous officials who did not secure the required job security guarantees, be annoyed at John Howard and his new laws that allow employers like QF to behave with supreme arrogance.
Finally, i note there is no alternative suggestions coming from you or anyone else lowerlobe. Thats because there is no alternative except a path that would lead to disaster.
The JFK ballot will be a YES, thats quite clear from speaking to crew and thats a good thing because our crew are understanding the environment we are in.
Hopefully, if most of us are still here in 2007 then we might actually think more clearly then and vote out the Howard Government.
I have to say the answers to all of what you continually raise has been given on many ocassions officially by the FAAA, but even for someone who obviously follows and thinks about issues you are nevertheless not listening too closely.
OK HERE GOES:-
In order of your numbering
1) yes the dispensation was given specifically to "save aussie jobs". The more important part of why it was given was to indicate to very senior Qantas people that the L/H Division AND THE L/H FAAA are prepared to be more flexible in their approach so that critical decisions are not made by very senior people in QF to effectively wind down L/H. Rather than you maintaining there is no threat...... look to Perth because that is what is facing all of us now.
2) In relation to this point your comments again show that you do not read carefully what is written, or alternatively you just see and say whatever aids your argument. The 25 March FAAA newsletter said this............. "The dispensation will operate for 2 bid periods, BP 239 and BP 240.
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. "
So at no time did the FAAA say dispensation would be withdrawn before BP240 OR THAT A BALLOT WOULD OCCUR BEFORE BP 240.
What is said in that newsletter was that the dispensation would be reviewed following BP 240 if "cabin crew feedback indicated majority opposition". There was hardly any negative feedback to the FAAA , quite the opposite and the dispensation was continued. Also a Ballot was never mentioned by the FAAA until a newsletter dated 22 September.
So if you wish to be treated seriously lowerlobe you need to tell the truth rather than inventing stuff. I have no problem with your anti -JFK views but i have a huge problem with anyone attempting to mislead .
3-The Company and this union as indeed any other Qantas union has disputes on interpretation of agreeements or EBA clauses. That is nothing new and thats why we have a dispute settlement clause in our EBA that requires both parties to go to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when we disagree about something, like the crew rest issue. The AIRC then decides who is correct not me or you lowerlobe.
4-Nothing to do with disdain. All to do with maximising profits and using cheaper alternatives. Again this is what employers do , its not something remarkable. That is why the FAAA is saying we have to be flexible or otherwise QF will simply continue to send our work to cheaper alternatives and you and I will be made redundant.
5- Correct it doesn't. But this is where you continually miss the point. The preferred option for QF is to have a dispensation from the FAAA, because it gives greater profitability to the marginal nature of flying to JFK. THAT IS NO SECRET.
However, if we revoke the dispensation , QF does not care because it will then deploy all kiwi crews on the 5 flights to JFK per week.
That means all those extra slots that are taken by aussie crews to LAX will be taken by Kiwi crew. That means good LAX flying will be taken from us and our crew will be left doing Africa's , Mumbais etc instead.
Revoking the dispensation is saying to Qantas that they need to plan to give more international flying to Short Haul or the new Jetstar because L/H crew don't want to do it. Already we are way more expensive than everyone else and by refusing dispensation and generally not being prepared to be flexible Qantas will then act in a predictable business driven manner and marginalise L/H further.
Qantas does not need to sit down and negotiate anything... they are not asking to negotiate anything. They are asking for a dispensation but are saying if we dont provide it...then others will do the work.
Lowerlobe you and a few others need to understand that point as it is a critical point . Its unpalatable for all of us, but nevertheless it is the way it is.
There will need to be negotiations down the track...thats what the FAAA is signalling to its members but those negotiations will have to centre on narrowing the cost differentials between us and all the other cheaper cabin crew that QF employs.
So rather than getting annoyed at the FAAA that is trying to protect our jobs in this hostile environment...be annoyed at previous officials who did not secure the required job security guarantees, be annoyed at John Howard and his new laws that allow employers like QF to behave with supreme arrogance.
Finally, i note there is no alternative suggestions coming from you or anyone else lowerlobe. Thats because there is no alternative except a path that would lead to disaster.
The JFK ballot will be a YES, thats quite clear from speaking to crew and thats a good thing because our crew are understanding the environment we are in.
Hopefully, if most of us are still here in 2007 then we might actually think more clearly then and vote out the Howard Government.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to General Le Ben Dover
Lie number 1:“I have to say the answers to all of what you continually raise has been given on many ocassions officially by the FAAA, but even for someone who obviously follows and thinks about issues you are nevertheless not listening too closely.”
The faaa have never released a newsletter about the so called fatigue report, they have not mentioned that 6 positions have been replaced and they usually do not communicate with us until after the event.
Quote “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. "
Lie Number 2 :So at no time did the FAAA say dispensation would be withdrawn before BP240 OR THAT A BALLOT WOULD OCCUR BEFORE BP 240.
How could you revoke the dispensation before the completion of BP 240 if you did not have a vote well before BP 240…Are you telepathic
Lie number 3:Nothing to do with disdain. All to do with maximising profits and using cheaper alternatives. Again this is what employers do , its not something remarkable. That is why the FAAA is saying we have to be flexible or otherwise.
What is the point of going through all the negotiating of an EBA and the meetings if the company is going to snipe at us at every opportunity when the whole idea of the EBA is to establish a period of stability.You sound as though you are representing the company not the faaa?
The bottom line which you conveniently pass over is that the company does not need the dispensation to save money on the JFK shuttle therefore they want the dispensation for other reasons which apparently you are only too happy to BEN DOVER and give them
Lie number 4: “Correct it doesn't. But this is where you continually miss the point. The preferred option for QF is to have a dispensation from the FAAA, because it gives greater profitability to the marginal nature of flying to JFK. THAT IS NO SECRET.”
Again it sounds as though the company has written this, what is the point of the dispensation if the company can and is replacing us with foreign crew…They don’t need it if we are not on the aircraft. It is you who is not missing the point continually but are distorting the truth continually
Lie number 5: “Finally, i note there is no alternative suggestions coming from you or anyone else lowerlobe. Thats because there is no alternative except a path that would lead to disaster.”
I have suggested alternatives but you are either blind of not open to any other alternatives as you have just said….
"Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
The alternative is to stand up and defend ourselves from the faaa and the company and SAY NO…
VOTE NO
Lie number 1:“I have to say the answers to all of what you continually raise has been given on many ocassions officially by the FAAA, but even for someone who obviously follows and thinks about issues you are nevertheless not listening too closely.”
The faaa have never released a newsletter about the so called fatigue report, they have not mentioned that 6 positions have been replaced and they usually do not communicate with us until after the event.
Quote “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. "
Lie Number 2 :So at no time did the FAAA say dispensation would be withdrawn before BP240 OR THAT A BALLOT WOULD OCCUR BEFORE BP 240.
How could you revoke the dispensation before the completion of BP 240 if you did not have a vote well before BP 240…Are you telepathic
Lie number 3:Nothing to do with disdain. All to do with maximising profits and using cheaper alternatives. Again this is what employers do , its not something remarkable. That is why the FAAA is saying we have to be flexible or otherwise.
What is the point of going through all the negotiating of an EBA and the meetings if the company is going to snipe at us at every opportunity when the whole idea of the EBA is to establish a period of stability.You sound as though you are representing the company not the faaa?
The bottom line which you conveniently pass over is that the company does not need the dispensation to save money on the JFK shuttle therefore they want the dispensation for other reasons which apparently you are only too happy to BEN DOVER and give them
Lie number 4: “Correct it doesn't. But this is where you continually miss the point. The preferred option for QF is to have a dispensation from the FAAA, because it gives greater profitability to the marginal nature of flying to JFK. THAT IS NO SECRET.”
Again it sounds as though the company has written this, what is the point of the dispensation if the company can and is replacing us with foreign crew…They don’t need it if we are not on the aircraft. It is you who is not missing the point continually but are distorting the truth continually
Lie number 5: “Finally, i note there is no alternative suggestions coming from you or anyone else lowerlobe. Thats because there is no alternative except a path that would lead to disaster.”
I have suggested alternatives but you are either blind of not open to any other alternatives as you have just said….
"Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
The alternative is to stand up and defend ourselves from the faaa and the company and SAY NO…
VOTE NO
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOWERLOBE
I attempted to treat you seriously in my last post. That will be the last ocassion that i do so. You have a grasp of latin....unfortunately you lack elementary commonsense.
Obviously you have adopted a blinkered approach and no amount of reason is going to dislodge you from the ridiculous position you have taken.
FOR THE LAST TIME TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY TO YOU...BECAUSE IT REALLY ISN'T THAT DIFFICULT.
1- WHY WOULD THE FAAA WRITE A NEWSLETTER ON THE FATIGUE REPORT----- JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA?. THE REPORT IS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO OUR (CREWS) POSITION REGARDING MANY PATTERNS AND THE ISSUE OF FATIGUE GENERALLY.
Fine strategy that you are suggesting, lets advertise all the gory details for the whole world to see! Brilliant suggestion and a suggestion worthy of a 5 year old.
The FAAA issues detailed newsletters unprecedented for any union. They are issued with the view of not harming our interests , obviously a concept that your limited mind cannot grasp.
2- The newsletter of 25 march said that the dispensation would be revoked following BP240 if there was majority negative feedback from crew. There was no suggestion it would be revoked by having a ballot within BP'S 239-240.
Listen to what i'm saying to you...there was no mention of a ballot until the 22 September newsletter!
So the dispensation wasn't terminated by the FAAA after BP240 because there was no majority opposition.
In relation to your continual stupid comments that they can use the foreign crews anyway, of course they can! But THE FAAA is saying we should not be encouraging that!
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Also, it just doesn't sink into your head that QF is going to continually want more. It is a Company wanting to find more cost savings !
You or I or the FAAA is not going to prevent it from trying to do that. IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS FOR GOD'S SAKE!
Finally, on the JFK issue i am not going to respond to anymore of your nonsense. I've tried to reason with you but that is impossible.
As always with 4000 members there are going to be a small handful who can never understand. It was silly of me to think that every person can be persuaded through logical argument to alter their views.
Safely for the membership, lowerlobe is in a small minority.
Obviously you have adopted a blinkered approach and no amount of reason is going to dislodge you from the ridiculous position you have taken.
FOR THE LAST TIME TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY TO YOU...BECAUSE IT REALLY ISN'T THAT DIFFICULT.
1- WHY WOULD THE FAAA WRITE A NEWSLETTER ON THE FATIGUE REPORT----- JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA?. THE REPORT IS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO OUR (CREWS) POSITION REGARDING MANY PATTERNS AND THE ISSUE OF FATIGUE GENERALLY.
Fine strategy that you are suggesting, lets advertise all the gory details for the whole world to see! Brilliant suggestion and a suggestion worthy of a 5 year old.
The FAAA issues detailed newsletters unprecedented for any union. They are issued with the view of not harming our interests , obviously a concept that your limited mind cannot grasp.
2- The newsletter of 25 march said that the dispensation would be revoked following BP240 if there was majority negative feedback from crew. There was no suggestion it would be revoked by having a ballot within BP'S 239-240.
Listen to what i'm saying to you...there was no mention of a ballot until the 22 September newsletter!
So the dispensation wasn't terminated by the FAAA after BP240 because there was no majority opposition.
In relation to your continual stupid comments that they can use the foreign crews anyway, of course they can! But THE FAAA is saying we should not be encouraging that!
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Also, it just doesn't sink into your head that QF is going to continually want more. It is a Company wanting to find more cost savings !
You or I or the FAAA is not going to prevent it from trying to do that. IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS FOR GOD'S SAKE!
Finally, on the JFK issue i am not going to respond to anymore of your nonsense. I've tried to reason with you but that is impossible.
As always with 4000 members there are going to be a small handful who can never understand. It was silly of me to think that every person can be persuaded through logical argument to alter their views.
Safely for the membership, lowerlobe is in a small minority.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s cut to the chase…
The temporary dispensation did not save jobs in fact just the opposite
Then why would you think that a permanent dispensation would be any different…
The company wants the dispensation not to save money on the JFK shuttle but to further erode our flying…
VOTE NO
The temporary dispensation did not save jobs in fact just the opposite
Then why would you think that a permanent dispensation would be any different…
The company wants the dispensation not to save money on the JFK shuttle but to further erode our flying…
VOTE NO
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting too weird! Keep going you leftist leaning loonies because it's a great read.
Well! Doesn't that explain a lot.
LowerLobe and the other extremist-left lunatic fringe, prepare yourselves for your ultimate humiliation when the vote is counted.
No amount of hysterical bleating in this forum by the usual suspects(most of whom are the ex disgraced FAAA officials)...
LowerLobe and the other extremist-left lunatic fringe, prepare yourselves for your ultimate humiliation when the vote is counted.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s see ..who wants the dispensation to succeed..
The Company
The FAAA
And now Jet Black Monaro , a rabid anti unionist and right wing pro management and IR reform spokesman..where do you think JBM’s loyalties are, certainly not with cabin crew , That’s for sure .If anyone wants us to fall it is him ,so a NO vote is the last thing he wants.
If the temporary dispensation did not save any jobs and the company replaced 40 % of the JFK shuttle crew with foreign based crew.
Then the permanent dispensation will certainly not do any better but it will create a precedent that will make the company and people like JBM very happy..
VOTE NO
The Company
The FAAA
And now Jet Black Monaro , a rabid anti unionist and right wing pro management and IR reform spokesman..where do you think JBM’s loyalties are, certainly not with cabin crew , That’s for sure .If anyone wants us to fall it is him ,so a NO vote is the last thing he wants.
If the temporary dispensation did not save any jobs and the company replaced 40 % of the JFK shuttle crew with foreign based crew.
Then the permanent dispensation will certainly not do any better but it will create a precedent that will make the company and people like JBM very happy..
VOTE NO
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual just abuse from the rostered faaa leaders..
The temporary dispensation cost us jobs (40% of the crew and with 5 services a week to JFK soon that is 30 crew a week we have lost thanks to the faaa)
If that was not bad enough the faaa wants to give the company a permanent dispensation..
The envelope with the ballot should have contained information on both a Yes vote and a NO vote.The faaa does not have the right to tell us what to vote but to give us the options
“Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
Vote NO
The temporary dispensation cost us jobs (40% of the crew and with 5 services a week to JFK soon that is 30 crew a week we have lost thanks to the faaa)
If that was not bad enough the faaa wants to give the company a permanent dispensation..
The envelope with the ballot should have contained information on both a Yes vote and a NO vote.The faaa does not have the right to tell us what to vote but to give us the options
“Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
Vote NO
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then again if we vote no we lose a total 13 by 5 times a week.
What ever dosage you’re on Lower Limp get your shrink to double it!!
Anyway Lower Limp you believe we shouldn’t be doing the shuttle in the 1st place so how can it be a lose of jobs?
And please Lower Limp, don’t regurgitate that precedent vomit all over again it’s getting really tiresome!
Already have VOTED YES
What ever dosage you’re on Lower Limp get your shrink to double it!!
Anyway Lower Limp you believe we shouldn’t be doing the shuttle in the 1st place so how can it be a lose of jobs?
And please Lower Limp, don’t regurgitate that precedent vomit all over again it’s getting really tiresome!
Already have VOTED YES
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOTE NO
While I do not agree with ALL the statements by the NO advocates here I WILL be voting NO.
The faaa is taking a stance of "negotiating" with QF. Trying to say to QF "we will talk to you and it will save LH jobs". However I believe it is way to late. Dicko has the gloves off and LH crew (tech and cabin) are in his sights.
If QF were in the same frame of mind as the faaa do you think they would just take away crew rest on sectors less than 6 hours without any negotiation?
If QF were in the same frame of mind as the faaa do you think they would now crew the JFK shuttle with a large portion of overseas bases even though they have been given a dispensation?
The reality is that QF have an agenda to cripple and disengage LH crew and "negotiating" only gives them more to play with.
I say let's make QF abide by our current conditions.
Vote NO to the dispensation.
The faaa is taking a stance of "negotiating" with QF. Trying to say to QF "we will talk to you and it will save LH jobs". However I believe it is way to late. Dicko has the gloves off and LH crew (tech and cabin) are in his sights.
If QF were in the same frame of mind as the faaa do you think they would just take away crew rest on sectors less than 6 hours without any negotiation?
If QF were in the same frame of mind as the faaa do you think they would now crew the JFK shuttle with a large portion of overseas bases even though they have been given a dispensation?
The reality is that QF have an agenda to cripple and disengage LH crew and "negotiating" only gives them more to play with.
I say let's make QF abide by our current conditions.
Vote NO to the dispensation.