QANTAS discussions (All Bases) - Merged
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOTE NO
Well said qfcsm. The company's insult by placing Kiwis on the JFKS before we have even voted shows a complete lack of respect for all crew ------ and the faaa!!! I fear there is something more going on behind the scenes and have never felt that removing our New York slips was truly a cost cutting measure. It was meant to just demoralise crew even further and make us feel helpless. Have some guts >>>>>> AND VOTE NO !!!
Pro Golfer you're out of bounds with your comment on lowerlobes wife, that was a cheap nasty vindictive comment and you should be ashamed of it and withdraw it. I dont even know if the blokes married, has a partner gay or straight but grow up and keep our families out of this debate. Also you keep carping on about sending in your "ballet paper" which makes it a donkey vote. My ballot paper has a big NO on it and is on its way.
Vote yes for cowardly capitulation>>> VOTE NO if you have backbone.
Pro Golfer you're out of bounds with your comment on lowerlobes wife, that was a cheap nasty vindictive comment and you should be ashamed of it and withdraw it. I dont even know if the blokes married, has a partner gay or straight but grow up and keep our families out of this debate. Also you keep carping on about sending in your "ballet paper" which makes it a donkey vote. My ballot paper has a big NO on it and is on its way.
Vote yes for cowardly capitulation>>> VOTE NO if you have backbone.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOTE NO
If you read Progolfers post at 3.47 ,
You will see the problem that is inherent in the faaa and that is a lack of intelligence and decency.
Apart from a basic problem with simple maths, he really is a disgrace.
If you want some help with basic maths you subtract 6 (that’s the number the company has replaced) from the crew complement and you get the remainder and it is not 13…duuuhhhhh
I’ll give you a hint, the crew complement is not 19…although we would all like it to be.
Apart from that my personal life is irrelevant to this argument and shows how low the faaa and their supporters will go against anyone who voices a different opinion.
Either Guardian,Pegasus ,Eden and progolfer are the same person or the faaa has a roster to abuse anyone who has a different opinion to them.
If you have intelligence and decency show the faaa and the company what you think and
vote NO
You will see the problem that is inherent in the faaa and that is a lack of intelligence and decency.
Apart from a basic problem with simple maths, he really is a disgrace.
If you want some help with basic maths you subtract 6 (that’s the number the company has replaced) from the crew complement and you get the remainder and it is not 13…duuuhhhhh
I’ll give you a hint, the crew complement is not 19…although we would all like it to be.
Apart from that my personal life is irrelevant to this argument and shows how low the faaa and their supporters will go against anyone who voices a different opinion.
Either Guardian,Pegasus ,Eden and progolfer are the same person or the faaa has a roster to abuse anyone who has a different opinion to them.
If you have intelligence and decency show the faaa and the company what you think and
vote NO
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
Can assure you i'm not Pro golfer...Guardian ..Pegasus or whoever else you think.
But what i am is representative of most crew who understand the issues.
Good posts Guardian, and Pro ..you guys understand the issues.
Lowerlobe its you who cant do maths..... u and your very few supporters are suggesting we should give away our flying to others.
What brilliant thinkers you guys are....you will really hurt and scare Qantas with that approach. You people are so out of touch it isn't even funny. Actually it's funny and sad at the same time to listen to the gibberish of lowerlobe, schlong haul and qfcsm.
If there were ever 3 people to replace the 3 stooges of yester -year then its you 3.
Good on the FAAA they are in line with the membership and Pro Golfer you are right ..most crew are voting yes. No doubt about it whatsoever.
first line in my last post should read Eden.
just before lowerlobe castigates me for a typo.
hope you got the humour.
Just as my last post didn\'t make any sense... your argument does not make any sense.
I hope my little attempt at humour makes the point.
You just continually type nonsense in here.
But what i am is representative of most crew who understand the issues.
Good posts Guardian, and Pro ..you guys understand the issues.
Lowerlobe its you who cant do maths..... u and your very few supporters are suggesting we should give away our flying to others.
What brilliant thinkers you guys are....you will really hurt and scare Qantas with that approach. You people are so out of touch it isn't even funny. Actually it's funny and sad at the same time to listen to the gibberish of lowerlobe, schlong haul and qfcsm.
If there were ever 3 people to replace the 3 stooges of yester -year then its you 3.
Good on the FAAA they are in line with the membership and Pro Golfer you are right ..most crew are voting yes. No doubt about it whatsoever.
first line in my last post should read Eden.
just before lowerlobe castigates me for a typo.
hope you got the humour.
Just as my last post didn\'t make any sense... your argument does not make any sense.
I hope my little attempt at humour makes the point.
You just continually type nonsense in here.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian out for a duck !!!
Caught out Guardian
Your quote: good posts guardian and pro...you guys understand the issues
Patting yourself on the back?? Or more likely playing with yourself under the table !!!! Have you like Pro sent in your "ballet paper" ?? Guardian, Eden, Pro & Peg ---One and the same just one and the same.
All the more reason TO VOTE NO
Your quote: good posts guardian and pro...you guys understand the issues
Patting yourself on the back?? Or more likely playing with yourself under the table !!!! Have you like Pro sent in your "ballet paper" ?? Guardian, Eden, Pro & Peg ---One and the same just one and the same.
All the more reason TO VOTE NO
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schlong
You guys are so easy to confuse.
Even an obvious attempt at humour is confusing for you.
Ah well, further demonstrates my point about you people not understanding any of the issues.
Even an obvious attempt at humour is confusing for you.
Ah well, further demonstrates my point about you people not understanding any of the issues.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotcha!!!
Ahhh Hook line & sinker, took the opportunity to use my own warped sense of humour Guardian. Anyway at least we're having a bit of fun now>>>>> what say big nose? 
You vote no and I'll vote yes and I hope to hell it works out for us whatever vote gets up.
You vote no and I'll vote yes and I hope to hell it works out for us whatever vote gets up.
Last edited by Shlonghaul; 11th Dec 2005 at 08:27.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caught out big time and know you know the point about my reference to "Me Myself and Irene"...Split personalities..or one person with a handle on himself..
So my maths is out..
Quick quiz what is the crew complement of a 400 on the jfk run...is it 15 , 19 or what ever Ben Dover and mrs palmer and her 5 daughters think of next...
errrhh let me think 15 take away 6 is err yeah 13...
And you are saying we should listen to you because you know what your doing...
Now who's on next....
VOTE NO
So my maths is out..
Quick quiz what is the crew complement of a 400 on the jfk run...is it 15 , 19 or what ever Ben Dover and mrs palmer and her 5 daughters think of next...
errrhh let me think 15 take away 6 is err yeah 13...
And you are saying we should listen to you because you know what your doing...
Now who's on next....
VOTE NO
Schlong
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wanted to remind you all that your Mods are watching with fingers poised over the red buttons that will block you from PPRuNe or this thread. 
Make your points, disagree by all means, but avoid attacking the person rather than the point made.
Can somebody advise the date that the results of this ballot will be announced? - so that we can all enjoy a moments peace on that day!!
Make your points, disagree by all means, but avoid attacking the person rather than the point made.
Can somebody advise the date that the results of this ballot will be announced? - so that we can all enjoy a moments peace on that day!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO DEAR MODERATORS
to answer your question, the ballot will be counted and announced on wednesday 21 December 2005.
Then there will be peace and tranquility in our time in this forum ( a joke ).
We in australia are perhaps more robust in our debating styles when it comes to the net as compared to you guys in the UK.
It's the convict heritage :-)) . As moderators , you seem to understand that point and the ability to have a vigorous and at times a seemingly robust exchange is a good thing.
We are all pretty thick skinned here and it is a particular trademark of Qantas Long Haul crew.
So whilst you guys have the "finger poised over the red botton" be gentle with us.
Cheers and a merry xmas to the moderators.
Then there will be peace and tranquility in our time in this forum ( a joke ).
We in australia are perhaps more robust in our debating styles when it comes to the net as compared to you guys in the UK.
It's the convict heritage :-)) . As moderators , you seem to understand that point and the ability to have a vigorous and at times a seemingly robust exchange is a good thing.
We are all pretty thick skinned here and it is a particular trademark of Qantas Long Haul crew.
So whilst you guys have the "finger poised over the red botton" be gentle with us.
Cheers and a merry xmas to the moderators.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowerlobe: if we vote NO then how do we go about getting our NY slips back, and getting the LA flying back off the AKL crew once they crew the flights completely? You sound like you have the answers, but just haven't explained them here yet.
Or are you a senior enough CSM or CSS who just wants the kiwis to do the flying so you (as a CSM or CSS) can slip in NY at the expense of the rest of the crew who would love the chance to do the LA flying (instead of endless Singapore returns)? Is it true that if the dispensation is voted down they will give ALL the flying to the AKL crew with the CSM and CSS to slip in NY with the tech crew?
Even if they are putting some of the Kiwis on the flights at the moment, at least there are still some Aussies doing the flying. By my view that is better than none (and more JNB, Mumbai etc.).
Get over the endless rhetoric and provide others with answers that are asked of you. How do we get the LA flying back that we lose to the AKL based crew under your proposal?
Or are you a senior enough CSM or CSS who just wants the kiwis to do the flying so you (as a CSM or CSS) can slip in NY at the expense of the rest of the crew who would love the chance to do the LA flying (instead of endless Singapore returns)? Is it true that if the dispensation is voted down they will give ALL the flying to the AKL crew with the CSM and CSS to slip in NY with the tech crew?
Even if they are putting some of the Kiwis on the flights at the moment, at least there are still some Aussies doing the flying. By my view that is better than none (and more JNB, Mumbai etc.).
Get over the endless rhetoric and provide others with answers that are asked of you. How do we get the LA flying back that we lose to the AKL based crew under your proposal?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the major points of your endless argument Lowerlobe seems to be regarding the fatigue study. You continuously refer to the tech crew study which has been in effect for a couple of years now. Let me assure you the tech crew study is costing Qantas a lot of money. Now we all know that QF only spends money if they have a good reason at the moment, particularly if they could put an end to the study, save a few dollars, and add to someone's management bonus.
To put it simply, the tech crew study will not benefit crew as a whole in the least. It will result in decreased slips and more work once the results are properly analysed. It also sounds like your fatigue report comes to some similar conclusions about some areas, and given the cabin crew actually have more restrictive conditions with regard to slipping in some ports, don't be under any ill informed illusions.
Why else would QF be spending money? Perhaps your association has some merit in not making a huge circus out of your report. Perhaps studies may make an issue about some patterns being particularly tiring, but for every one it says we should be compensated for, I can assure you there are at least two or three that we get more than we should (which QF would love to change). The days of crew having a slip of any more than 40 hours in any port based on fatigue are seriously numbered if the results of these studies are anything to go by thus far.
At the end of the day, you may find yourselves under a bit of pressure as well as the tech crew after their study is finalised, so lets not go further down a track that is not going to advantage anyone.
To win some you sometimes have to lose some. Ask yourself at the end of the day why Qantas is allowing money to be spent on the tech crew fatigue study and think about what it could possibly mean to life as we know it.
To put it simply, the tech crew study will not benefit crew as a whole in the least. It will result in decreased slips and more work once the results are properly analysed. It also sounds like your fatigue report comes to some similar conclusions about some areas, and given the cabin crew actually have more restrictive conditions with regard to slipping in some ports, don't be under any ill informed illusions.
Why else would QF be spending money? Perhaps your association has some merit in not making a huge circus out of your report. Perhaps studies may make an issue about some patterns being particularly tiring, but for every one it says we should be compensated for, I can assure you there are at least two or three that we get more than we should (which QF would love to change). The days of crew having a slip of any more than 40 hours in any port based on fatigue are seriously numbered if the results of these studies are anything to go by thus far.
At the end of the day, you may find yourselves under a bit of pressure as well as the tech crew after their study is finalised, so lets not go further down a track that is not going to advantage anyone.
To win some you sometimes have to lose some. Ask yourself at the end of the day why Qantas is allowing money to be spent on the tech crew fatigue study and think about what it could possibly mean to life as we know it.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderator - apologies!
I sometimes of get sick of people outside of QF mainline telling us how bad they have it. According to them their plight means we must bow down to management when management decides to ignore our EBA.
Perhaps before posting with abuse about QF longhaul, and subsequently closing with 'how bad we have it here' those people could go off and get better conditions, rather than slagging us for trying to keep our conditions - which we have fought long and hard for over the years.
QfRegional
Darling, if you even knew what you were talking about, it would lend credence to your carry on about Long Haul.
Yes - The PER base NOW does nothing but 5 day SIN trips (thanks to Short Haul making themselves cheaper)
If you knew the history (which you quite obviously don’t) you would know in the past we did CDG, NRT, HKG, DPS, JKT, JNB & SIN trips
Oh perhaps I should translate that for you as they are international airport codes (something you may not have seen before) :
Paris, Narita (Tokyo), Hong Kong, Denpasar, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Singapore
As I said in my moderator-deleted-post, try commenting on something you actually know about (you embarrass yourself less that way)
And as a last (and if you had half a brain you could have read this from the previous posts) I have a family, and as such I will stay in Perth - and terrorise the fine folk at short haul for the rest of my days.
Enjoy your 9 legs.
I sometimes of get sick of people outside of QF mainline telling us how bad they have it. According to them their plight means we must bow down to management when management decides to ignore our EBA.
Perhaps before posting with abuse about QF longhaul, and subsequently closing with 'how bad we have it here' those people could go off and get better conditions, rather than slagging us for trying to keep our conditions - which we have fought long and hard for over the years.
QfRegional
Darling, if you even knew what you were talking about, it would lend credence to your carry on about Long Haul.
Yes - The PER base NOW does nothing but 5 day SIN trips (thanks to Short Haul making themselves cheaper)
If you knew the history (which you quite obviously don’t) you would know in the past we did CDG, NRT, HKG, DPS, JKT, JNB & SIN trips
Oh perhaps I should translate that for you as they are international airport codes (something you may not have seen before) :
Paris, Narita (Tokyo), Hong Kong, Denpasar, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Singapore
As I said in my moderator-deleted-post, try commenting on something you actually know about (you embarrass yourself less that way)
And as a last (and if you had half a brain you could have read this from the previous posts) I have a family, and as such I will stay in Perth - and terrorise the fine folk at short haul for the rest of my days.
Enjoy your 9 legs.
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 Pointer…
Fair enough about answering questions but then the faaa surrendering sycophants have not answered mine either .
To answer yours though you have to look at it from the start .Qantas have basically told the faaa that unless we accept a reduction in conditions and an increase in hours they will replace us with foreign workers.
In other words BLACKMAIL and that alone makes me believe that we should vote NO.
If we give in once to blackmail then we will never hear the end of it as the company knows we are scared and will hammer us continually.
To answer your question though ,I have never stated that to vote NO would get us the slip back in New York.
However, if you look at the figures you never know .I asked one of the Faaa generals how many AKL crews it would take to operate the shuttle. Incredulously, I listened as he told me that no one in the office had worked that out.
If you have one AKL crew of 13 arriving in LAX and another AKL crew of 13 to operate the shuttle and then another AKL crew of 13 to operate the flight to AKL when it arrives back in at night and then do that 5 times a week, it makes for 195 AKL crew.
Then you have to have extra crew to cover other flights they do as well as holidays, sick leave and crew in slip ports. The complete number would well be over 200 in excess of the crew they use now and if you look at the cap on overseas crew and the numbers in LHR and BKK, you have to ask “is the AKL base capable of doing the shuttle”.
The French General Le Ben Dover of the faaa would not or could not tell me how many AKL crew there are in total but to find that many crew per WEEK is immense.
GD is a good poker player but if the faaa have not even done the feasibility sums as to how many crew would be needed then no wonder Darth has us on the run.
Does the AKL base have enough crew to operate the shuttle? it would seem only the company knows but it it would be a big ask.
Bad Adventures, Don’t worry about my posts too much pal as they are well beyond your capabilities. I think you and your Neanderthal mates Pro Gofer and White Powder should have tried to finish school and read a little more to try and advance yourselves and maybe it would help to concentrate for more than 5 seconds at a time…Then you might understand the posts and life a little better.
Boys, try walking upright as well like the rest of the human race, it will be easier then for you guys to get back down to Cronulla tonight???
Pro Gofer,
Quick quiz…How many crew do you have when you take 6 away from 15….NO it is not 13....duhhhhhhh
"Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
A NO VOTE is on it’s way….
Fair enough about answering questions but then the faaa surrendering sycophants have not answered mine either .
To answer yours though you have to look at it from the start .Qantas have basically told the faaa that unless we accept a reduction in conditions and an increase in hours they will replace us with foreign workers.
In other words BLACKMAIL and that alone makes me believe that we should vote NO.
If we give in once to blackmail then we will never hear the end of it as the company knows we are scared and will hammer us continually.
To answer your question though ,I have never stated that to vote NO would get us the slip back in New York.
However, if you look at the figures you never know .I asked one of the Faaa generals how many AKL crews it would take to operate the shuttle. Incredulously, I listened as he told me that no one in the office had worked that out.
If you have one AKL crew of 13 arriving in LAX and another AKL crew of 13 to operate the shuttle and then another AKL crew of 13 to operate the flight to AKL when it arrives back in at night and then do that 5 times a week, it makes for 195 AKL crew.
Then you have to have extra crew to cover other flights they do as well as holidays, sick leave and crew in slip ports. The complete number would well be over 200 in excess of the crew they use now and if you look at the cap on overseas crew and the numbers in LHR and BKK, you have to ask “is the AKL base capable of doing the shuttle”.
The French General Le Ben Dover of the faaa would not or could not tell me how many AKL crew there are in total but to find that many crew per WEEK is immense.
GD is a good poker player but if the faaa have not even done the feasibility sums as to how many crew would be needed then no wonder Darth has us on the run.
Does the AKL base have enough crew to operate the shuttle? it would seem only the company knows but it it would be a big ask.
Bad Adventures, Don’t worry about my posts too much pal as they are well beyond your capabilities. I think you and your Neanderthal mates Pro Gofer and White Powder should have tried to finish school and read a little more to try and advance yourselves and maybe it would help to concentrate for more than 5 seconds at a time…Then you might understand the posts and life a little better.
Boys, try walking upright as well like the rest of the human race, it will be easier then for you guys to get back down to Cronulla tonight???
Pro Gofer,
Quick quiz…How many crew do you have when you take 6 away from 15….NO it is not 13....duhhhhhhh
"Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum"
“ Quod erat demonstrandum”
A NO VOTE is on it’s way….
Last edited by lowerlobe; 12th Dec 2005 at 05:19.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All not rosy at VB?...JBM
In another forum JBM appears disappointed with the current management at VB.
Apparently Corrigan is not doing such a hot job.
No wonder you spend so much time bagging QF.
It takes your mind(sic)off problems closer to home.
Apparently Corrigan is not doing such a hot job.
No wonder you spend so much time bagging QF.
It takes your mind(sic)off problems closer to home.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dunrootin Retirement Village
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Vote No??......Why Vote Yes!!!
Why Vote No?.....Here's my spin on it.....earlier this year at the request of the company the faaa granted dispensation explaining to us that they believed there was a perception by Qantas management that the faaa and its membership were anti-company and not interested in a cooperative approach. So as a gesture of goodwill dispensation was granted. I can understand this reasoning though I always felt that it was BS that it was a cost cutting measure and purely designed by the company to turn the screws into us even tighter. Now that goodwill gesture has been rewarded with six, or is that sux, kiwis on the JFKS. I regard that as a slap in the face to crew AND THE FAAA particularly being done just BEFORE we have voted on the issue. The company is hoping that we'll cower and vote yes whilst daring us to vote no. I'm heartily sick of their control freak attitude and therefore have voted NO.
Please no crap about "If you dont like it then get out" I still love the job and enjoy working with some great people. This is about our future and the future of Australian jobs. I feel voting yes will set a dangerous precedent and give the company carte blanche to do as they wish and have us doing multi sector day trips elsewhere of hours around the JFKS or more. So think very carefully about your vote but please do vote and show that you are concerned about our future.
I would also like someone to answer this question ....... If we vote yes what guarantees have been offered by the company that from BP243 and beyond that ALL positions on JFK flights will be filled by Australian based longhaul crew?
I don't know if Pro Guardian of Eden 69 Pegasus Hunter are one and the same but maybe one of them with knowledge can answer that question. Along with what will the faaa do if the NO vote is successful?
No guarantee ? Then NO is the only way to go!!
Ironic isn't it, if we vote yes it's like pissing into the wind , and if we vote no we'll piss off the company.........but at least they'll know we're sick of being pushed around.
In anycase with the introduction of additional JFK flights I would have thought it prudent that New York slips be reintroduced with slips 2-1-1, 2-2-1 etc as it used to be and in view of the additional costs incurred by the company with the extra slip times in LAX as used currently. This would be a wonderful gesture of goodwill from the company. Oh dear I think I just peed into the wind!!
Please no crap about "If you dont like it then get out" I still love the job and enjoy working with some great people. This is about our future and the future of Australian jobs. I feel voting yes will set a dangerous precedent and give the company carte blanche to do as they wish and have us doing multi sector day trips elsewhere of hours around the JFKS or more. So think very carefully about your vote but please do vote and show that you are concerned about our future.
I would also like someone to answer this question ....... If we vote yes what guarantees have been offered by the company that from BP243 and beyond that ALL positions on JFK flights will be filled by Australian based longhaul crew?
I don't know if Pro Guardian of Eden 69 Pegasus Hunter are one and the same but maybe one of them with knowledge can answer that question. Along with what will the faaa do if the NO vote is successful?
No guarantee ? Then NO is the only way to go!!
Ironic isn't it, if we vote yes it's like pissing into the wind , and if we vote no we'll piss off the company.........but at least they'll know we're sick of being pushed around.
In anycase with the introduction of additional JFK flights I would have thought it prudent that New York slips be reintroduced with slips 2-1-1, 2-2-1 etc as it used to be and in view of the additional costs incurred by the company with the extra slip times in LAX as used currently. This would be a wonderful gesture of goodwill from the company. Oh dear I think I just peed into the wind!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well no more responding to Lowerlobe who seems unable to post without childish name calling and insults. What I prefer is the advice of sensible adults, not children with a chip on their shoulder.
If we vote NO, and all the AKL crew are utilised with the additional services, who is going to do the BOM and JNB services given more Sydney crew will have to operate there with less going to LA? Will Lowerlobe have to do them - probably not otherwise they would be voting the other way.
Can someone research and explain the numbers required vs AKL crew required? Also, with the cap on foreign crew, is there any more room left under that cap to employ more? If that is the case, will QF just hire more AKL crew to get the required numbers, or are they at the point where there is no option remaining to do so as the employment cap/quota is full? More info is required from the FAAA.
Also, what is the deal with the services being operated with foreign crew even after we have given the dispensation? Until these questions are answered by the FAAA I cannot say with certainty which option I believe is best.
Some of you have a seniority that probably stops you from having to do the crap left over at the end of bidding, unlike others who will be dealt the less desirable flying, and less LA flying if we vote NO. Financialy some crew will be penalised at the end of the day, while others will not. I would be happy to vote NO if I was certain it would lead to some long term advantage for all crew, but at the moment there is nothing telling me that it will be worth it.
Looking more and more like a YES vote. Along with the majority of crew I speak to.
If we vote NO, and all the AKL crew are utilised with the additional services, who is going to do the BOM and JNB services given more Sydney crew will have to operate there with less going to LA? Will Lowerlobe have to do them - probably not otherwise they would be voting the other way.
Can someone research and explain the numbers required vs AKL crew required? Also, with the cap on foreign crew, is there any more room left under that cap to employ more? If that is the case, will QF just hire more AKL crew to get the required numbers, or are they at the point where there is no option remaining to do so as the employment cap/quota is full? More info is required from the FAAA.
Also, what is the deal with the services being operated with foreign crew even after we have given the dispensation? Until these questions are answered by the FAAA I cannot say with certainty which option I believe is best.
Some of you have a seniority that probably stops you from having to do the crap left over at the end of bidding, unlike others who will be dealt the less desirable flying, and less LA flying if we vote NO. Financialy some crew will be penalised at the end of the day, while others will not. I would be happy to vote NO if I was certain it would lead to some long term advantage for all crew, but at the moment there is nothing telling me that it will be worth it.
Looking more and more like a YES vote. Along with the majority of crew I speak to.