QANTAS discussions (All Bases) - Merged
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front Pit
Most crew are voting YES for the dispensation because they understand that it is about protecting our flying.
Of course the FAAA is not going to distribute a NO case. How silly would that be. Are you suggesting Mike Mijatov who is supporting a YES vote to keep all of our jobs would then sit down and write up a NO case when the FAAA knows that would be detrimental to all of our jobs?
And a NO case would be the crap that is being written by people like lowerlobe and you, Front Pit........ all factually incorrect and based on no sense at all.
Those who believe in a NO case should do what Mijatov did in 2003 over EBA6...... GO OUT WRITE A CONVINCING CASE, USE YOUR OWN MONEY , TIME AND RESOURCES AND ABOVE ALL ATTACH YOUR NAMES TO IT!
Of course none of you suggesting a NO case will do that, because you would then be identified as the morons you are and when it all went wrong if crew listened to you, you would be held responsible.
Of course the FAAA is not going to distribute a NO case. How silly would that be. Are you suggesting Mike Mijatov who is supporting a YES vote to keep all of our jobs would then sit down and write up a NO case when the FAAA knows that would be detrimental to all of our jobs?
And a NO case would be the crap that is being written by people like lowerlobe and you, Front Pit........ all factually incorrect and based on no sense at all.
Those who believe in a NO case should do what Mijatov did in 2003 over EBA6...... GO OUT WRITE A CONVINCING CASE, USE YOUR OWN MONEY , TIME AND RESOURCES AND ABOVE ALL ATTACH YOUR NAMES TO IT!
Of course none of you suggesting a NO case will do that, because you would then be identified as the morons you are and when it all went wrong if crew listened to you, you would be held responsible.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front pit has a valid point and no one from the faaa has answered this or many of the other questions raised.
What Guarantee is there that the company will not replace us if we vote yes????
We have lost 40% of the crew with the job saving temporary dispensation of the faaa so what makes anyone think the company does not intend to replace more even if we vote yes. This is the primary response from the faaa and that this is about saving jobs but if it does not then????
If there is no guarantee then the only option is to vote NO…
To show my idea that this is about gaining some advantage over us with a dispensation I have worked on some numbers
Just a thought on the numbers required for the AKL crew to operate the JFK shuttle. Even if the company took the AKL crew off all of their other trips.
The TOD of an AKL/LAX/JFK/LAX/AKL trip is around 42 hours or a 5 day trip at minimum...
This means that you would only do 5.7 shuttles per roster at a limit of 240 hours a roster, which is 29 days.
This leaves a balance in a 56 day BP of 27 days or 20 shuttles which at 5 days minimum trip length requires another 4 crews.
So that means 9 crews a roster minimum to do the shuttle from AKL which is 117
Then we have the other 2 days a week service from AKL to LAX and return which at the moment is 16 crew a week for 8 weeks. This makes a total of 133
Then you have to allow for crew on holidays and if you have for example 4 weeks leave a year (half of an 8 week roster) then you have half again of the number we have just calculated which makes around 200.
Then you have to have crew on standby to cover any sick leave or operational requirements so if we count on say 10% that adds another 20 which makes 220
This also works on the slipping formula of only one night either side of the shuttle, if the crews have any longer then the trip is longer and we need more crew.
If then the minimum number of AKL crew required is around 220 and the Thai base is around the same and the LHR base is around 450 that makes a total of 890,which with the cap at 880 is illegal.
These calculations are only approximate but it appears as though the company would be pushing water uphill to do the shuttle with the AKL crews….
You will notice that there has been no reply from the faaa regarding any of my questions.
If the faaa has wanted a completely transparent ballot there have to be safeguards and there are none in this ballot. The reason I am suspicious is that there have been so many dodgy issues regarding the faaa that I am as cynical about them as I am about the company
What Guarantee is there that the company will not replace us if we vote yes????
We have lost 40% of the crew with the job saving temporary dispensation of the faaa so what makes anyone think the company does not intend to replace more even if we vote yes. This is the primary response from the faaa and that this is about saving jobs but if it does not then????
If there is no guarantee then the only option is to vote NO…
To show my idea that this is about gaining some advantage over us with a dispensation I have worked on some numbers
Just a thought on the numbers required for the AKL crew to operate the JFK shuttle. Even if the company took the AKL crew off all of their other trips.
The TOD of an AKL/LAX/JFK/LAX/AKL trip is around 42 hours or a 5 day trip at minimum...
This means that you would only do 5.7 shuttles per roster at a limit of 240 hours a roster, which is 29 days.
This leaves a balance in a 56 day BP of 27 days or 20 shuttles which at 5 days minimum trip length requires another 4 crews.
So that means 9 crews a roster minimum to do the shuttle from AKL which is 117
Then we have the other 2 days a week service from AKL to LAX and return which at the moment is 16 crew a week for 8 weeks. This makes a total of 133
Then you have to allow for crew on holidays and if you have for example 4 weeks leave a year (half of an 8 week roster) then you have half again of the number we have just calculated which makes around 200.
Then you have to have crew on standby to cover any sick leave or operational requirements so if we count on say 10% that adds another 20 which makes 220
This also works on the slipping formula of only one night either side of the shuttle, if the crews have any longer then the trip is longer and we need more crew.
If then the minimum number of AKL crew required is around 220 and the Thai base is around the same and the LHR base is around 450 that makes a total of 890,which with the cap at 880 is illegal.
These calculations are only approximate but it appears as though the company would be pushing water uphill to do the shuttle with the AKL crews….
You will notice that there has been no reply from the faaa regarding any of my questions.
If the faaa has wanted a completely transparent ballot there have to be safeguards and there are none in this ballot. The reason I am suspicious is that there have been so many dodgy issues regarding the faaa that I am as cynical about them as I am about the company
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So impressed am I with Qantas's decision to place the KIWIS on the trip despite our show of good faith that I too will now be voting NO! 
Oh btw I have received the email 3 times......
Oh btw I have received the email 3 times......
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dunrootin Retirement Village
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply........
Lowerlobe------ Yes the silence is deafening from the faaa supporters on my question re: guarantees from the company. You've certainly done your homework on the AKL based numbers but it appears wasted on this lot of white flag waving boofheads.
White Pointer ---- Thanks for at least replying to my question which I'm still awaiting from the faaa-rters fans. You raise some interesting points and with regard to the voting my biggest concern is what happens when the envelopes arrive at the faaa office? Does someone lock them away or are they read to see the vote is heading the right way? As I've said without guarantees from the company a yes vote may be irrelevant and I sure won't hold the breath about company management keeping up their end of the bargain. The fact that thay have placed 6 Kiwis on from next bid period shows the level of contempt for us and should be thrown back at them with a resounding VOTE OF NO.
Funny you say that 90% of crew that you've talked to are saying that they will vote yes while on my trips it's been exactly the opposite. And no I have'nt been doing Naritas!!
Pro Guardian of Eden 69er ----- Where is the guarantee of voting yes will protect our flying? Please answer my original question?!!!
I would'nt want MM to write up a case for the NO if he does'nt believe it to be the way to go. However there are councillors on the faaa who do believe that NO is the way to go. But they say that there concerns of the yes vote have been dismissed by The Fuhrer MM & SR aka Margaret Thatcher. They've been receiving the same abuse that is displayed on this site.
WHERE IS THE GUARANTEE FROM THE COMPANY THAT FROM BP243 ALL POSITIONS ON THE JFKS WILL BE FILLED BY AUSTRALIAN BASED LONGHAUL CABIN CREW IF WE VOTE YES??
NO GUARANTEES?..........THEN NO IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!
White Pointer ---- Thanks for at least replying to my question which I'm still awaiting from the faaa-rters fans. You raise some interesting points and with regard to the voting my biggest concern is what happens when the envelopes arrive at the faaa office? Does someone lock them away or are they read to see the vote is heading the right way? As I've said without guarantees from the company a yes vote may be irrelevant and I sure won't hold the breath about company management keeping up their end of the bargain. The fact that thay have placed 6 Kiwis on from next bid period shows the level of contempt for us and should be thrown back at them with a resounding VOTE OF NO.
Funny you say that 90% of crew that you've talked to are saying that they will vote yes while on my trips it's been exactly the opposite. And no I have'nt been doing Naritas!!
Pro Guardian of Eden 69er ----- Where is the guarantee of voting yes will protect our flying? Please answer my original question?!!!
I would'nt want MM to write up a case for the NO if he does'nt believe it to be the way to go. However there are councillors on the faaa who do believe that NO is the way to go. But they say that there concerns of the yes vote have been dismissed by The Fuhrer MM & SR aka Margaret Thatcher. They've been receiving the same abuse that is displayed on this site.
WHERE IS THE GUARANTEE FROM THE COMPANY THAT FROM BP243 ALL POSITIONS ON THE JFKS WILL BE FILLED BY AUSTRALIAN BASED LONGHAUL CABIN CREW IF WE VOTE YES??
NO GUARANTEES?..........THEN NO IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA NEWSLETTER
13 December 2005 ID 60-05
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
JFK VOTE AND ANONYMOUS EMAIL
The FAAA is aware of an anonymous email that is being circulated by individuals purporting to be cabin crew suggesting a NO vote.
These cowardly and ill informed people are attempting to influence the FAAA JFK Dispensation vote for their own purposes. Make no mistake they are not only cowards but they are liars too.
The anonymous email refers to the fact that 6 AKL based crew will be on some LAX-JFK-LAX patterns.
It then goes on to falsely say that the FAAA said that if crew vote YES to the Dispensation that this would mean no AKL crew would be used by Qantas on the JFK shuttle.
That is a complete lie. Whenever questioned about whether QF could still place AKL crew on the shuttles if a YES vote occurred, the FAAA has always said that QF had that ability. Those of you who attended the membership meetings can attest to that.
There is a cap of 870 on overseas based crew. Within this cap, Qantas is free to allocate overseas based crew to whatever patterns it chooses. That was always the case and will remain the case.
The FAAA has repeatedly stated that the dispensation is about protecting your flying and more importantly signalling to QF that L/H crew are flexible, so that the Perth Base closure is not extended to other bases or more generally, so that a forced redundancy situation does not develop in this Division.
These anonymous lying authors of the email would have crew reject the JFK Dispensation, and have a further 9 positions per flight taken away from L/H crew and allocated to AKL based crew, if the JFK Dispensation was voted down.
Such is their level of intellect and ability that their recommendation to vote NO would throw our crew off desirable LAX patterns and onto Africa and Mumbai patterns! Clever indeed.
FAAA SUGGESTION TO MEMBERS:
1- ALWAYS IGNORE ANONYMOUS MATERIAL. IF NAMES ARE NOT ATTACHED IT MEANS THE AUTHORS HAVE NON-DISCLOSED REASONS FOR FABRICATING MISINFORMATION AND LIES.
2- ENSURE YOU VOTE IN THE BALLOT.
3- PROTECT OUR FLYING AND OUR JOBS BY VOTING YES.
4- IF IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT ISSUES CONTACT THE FAAA – DO NOT LISTEN TO RUMOUR.
Finally, on behalf of the FAAA I thank many of you who have contacted the Office to register your support over the JFK issue. It is truly gratifying that members have understood why the FAAA is supporting a YES vote.
To follow the stupid, inane and illogical authors of the anonymous email would result in a disaster for L/H crew.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
JFK VOTE AND ANONYMOUS EMAIL
The FAAA is aware of an anonymous email that is being circulated by individuals purporting to be cabin crew suggesting a NO vote.
These cowardly and ill informed people are attempting to influence the FAAA JFK Dispensation vote for their own purposes. Make no mistake they are not only cowards but they are liars too.
The anonymous email refers to the fact that 6 AKL based crew will be on some LAX-JFK-LAX patterns.
It then goes on to falsely say that the FAAA said that if crew vote YES to the Dispensation that this would mean no AKL crew would be used by Qantas on the JFK shuttle.
That is a complete lie. Whenever questioned about whether QF could still place AKL crew on the shuttles if a YES vote occurred, the FAAA has always said that QF had that ability. Those of you who attended the membership meetings can attest to that.
There is a cap of 870 on overseas based crew. Within this cap, Qantas is free to allocate overseas based crew to whatever patterns it chooses. That was always the case and will remain the case.
The FAAA has repeatedly stated that the dispensation is about protecting your flying and more importantly signalling to QF that L/H crew are flexible, so that the Perth Base closure is not extended to other bases or more generally, so that a forced redundancy situation does not develop in this Division.
These anonymous lying authors of the email would have crew reject the JFK Dispensation, and have a further 9 positions per flight taken away from L/H crew and allocated to AKL based crew, if the JFK Dispensation was voted down.
Such is their level of intellect and ability that their recommendation to vote NO would throw our crew off desirable LAX patterns and onto Africa and Mumbai patterns! Clever indeed.
FAAA SUGGESTION TO MEMBERS:
1- ALWAYS IGNORE ANONYMOUS MATERIAL. IF NAMES ARE NOT ATTACHED IT MEANS THE AUTHORS HAVE NON-DISCLOSED REASONS FOR FABRICATING MISINFORMATION AND LIES.
2- ENSURE YOU VOTE IN THE BALLOT.
3- PROTECT OUR FLYING AND OUR JOBS BY VOTING YES.
4- IF IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT ISSUES CONTACT THE FAAA – DO NOT LISTEN TO RUMOUR.
Finally, on behalf of the FAAA I thank many of you who have contacted the Office to register your support over the JFK issue. It is truly gratifying that members have understood why the FAAA is supporting a YES vote.
To follow the stupid, inane and illogical authors of the anonymous email would result in a disaster for L/H crew.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
facts please
Crusty you are very wrong on your assumption that qf has voluntarily spend money on the fatigue study. It came about by aipa taken qf to court over a short jnb slip. That also got casa involved. Qf has been trying to run this project into the ground. However it was signed of by casa, qf and recommended by a senate committee. There was also a report (burning the midnight oil) made public by which the committee also included cabin crew into the fatigue research. My contacts also tell me the former faaa officials signed of on the project. You still find casa’s commitment to cabin crew on their website The current faaa officials have not continued to press for inclusion into the research (nor are they willing to support any sort of flight duty limitations frame work for cabin crew at present).
And to make assumption that it will decrease slips and so on, lets say is incredible st***d. with tours of duties increasing a proper based fatigue management system can not only benefit crew but funnily enough also qf. Until recently there has been no flight duty limitations and rest requirements for cabin crew in many parts of the world. Now you have them in the US, European union, most asian countries (some via their airlines) and many other countries and airlines. Its time the faaa wakes up and starts protecting the health and well being of its flight attendants. The current JFK shuttle, Fra one day return slips, syd-adl-drw-sin return are already very bad patterns. And I still would like to see that so called fatigue expert opinion on the shuttle and the pattern.
Very soon you have sectors from syd to jfk or lhr.
BTW GD has last year signed of on a company wide fatigue management program and its part of the NSW OH act..
Do you really think its ok to do some of the current and future ultra and multi sectors without proper check and balances?
And to make assumption that it will decrease slips and so on, lets say is incredible st***d. with tours of duties increasing a proper based fatigue management system can not only benefit crew but funnily enough also qf. Until recently there has been no flight duty limitations and rest requirements for cabin crew in many parts of the world. Now you have them in the US, European union, most asian countries (some via their airlines) and many other countries and airlines. Its time the faaa wakes up and starts protecting the health and well being of its flight attendants. The current JFK shuttle, Fra one day return slips, syd-adl-drw-sin return are already very bad patterns. And I still would like to see that so called fatigue expert opinion on the shuttle and the pattern.
Very soon you have sectors from syd to jfk or lhr.
BTW GD has last year signed of on a company wide fatigue management program and its part of the NSW OH act..
Do you really think its ok to do some of the current and future ultra and multi sectors without proper check and balances?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Advice
Would anyone see a legal impediment to me taking a recording device with me for interviews with my manager?
The managers all go back to their computers and add the essence of conversations to our/my profile.
Should I/could I be afforded the same opportunity to keep a record of conversations?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
The managers all go back to their computers and add the essence of conversations to our/my profile.
Should I/could I be afforded the same opportunity to keep a record of conversations?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great idea
let us know the outcome when you tell your visitor you are recording the conversation. legally it should not be a problem, however this might be the shortest talk you ever had with a visitor.
thanks eden99 for giving us more insight what appears to be a rather iritated little napolean. one can only picture kylie riding on his back with the whip going hard.
thanks eden99 for giving us more insight what appears to be a rather iritated little napolean. one can only picture kylie riding on his back with the whip going hard.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dunrootin Retirement Village
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last.....true colours!!!
Good one qcc2 not so much Napoleon but a little Hitler with his frothing at the mouth newsletter. What a tragic pathetic response to members with real concerns. While I have'nt seen this alleged e-mail, and perhaps someone can post it here, the response shows that the faaa has reached new levels of incompetence.
At least I've had my question answered about guarantees from the company. But it begs the further question why was'nt guarantees on the JFKS negotiated with the company so that an overwhelming yes vote would have some substance? Without them then I fear even more now that a yes vote will set a dangerous precendent and give the company untold control over our future. If they can put Kiwis on even after our gesture of goodwill in granting the dispensation then a yes vote is irrelevant. At least a no vote shows we have some backbone.
VOTING NO IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!
At least I've had my question answered about guarantees from the company. But it begs the further question why was'nt guarantees on the JFKS negotiated with the company so that an overwhelming yes vote would have some substance? Without them then I fear even more now that a yes vote will set a dangerous precendent and give the company untold control over our future. If they can put Kiwis on even after our gesture of goodwill in granting the dispensation then a yes vote is irrelevant. At least a no vote shows we have some backbone.
VOTING NO IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the desk of zer Fuhrer!!
Lowerlobe you scweinhund!!! You are making fun und mocking zer Fuhrers newsletter!!! You are all liars liars und traitors und cowards und zer Fuhrer is very upset mit you but in the goodness of his heart will give you a fair trial before you are shot!!
So the truth comes out!! What happens if the yes vote gets up? Absolutely nothing!!! The Kiwis will still be on the JFKs and may be more of them and with no guarantees from the company that Aussie based LH crew will solely operate them!!
Well done FAAA officials..........SOLD US OUT!!!
VOTE NO
So the truth comes out!! What happens if the yes vote gets up? Absolutely nothing!!! The Kiwis will still be on the JFKs and may be more of them and with no guarantees from the company that Aussie based LH crew will solely operate them!!
Well done FAAA officials..........SOLD US OUT!!!
VOTE NO
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the bigger picture is
setting a precedent for longer single, multi and ultra long range sectors.
please someone in the faaa take the wake up call.................its been ringing for a while
please someone in the faaa take the wake up call.................its been ringing for a while
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out Yourself
We know who AS SR and MM are.They put their names to all their correspondence.
Anonymous correspondence carries no weight at all.
It indicates that the authors are fearful of being known.
Fearful of being humiliated.
Fearful that their real names will reduce their thoughts and opinions to zero credibility.
We know the names and opinions of one side but not the other.
Its easy to take pot shots from behind a cloak of incognito.
Real names please.
Show us the courage of your convictions.
The answer will no doubt be some more effite latin krappicus.
Anonymous correspondence carries no weight at all.
It indicates that the authors are fearful of being known.
Fearful of being humiliated.
Fearful that their real names will reduce their thoughts and opinions to zero credibility.
We know the names and opinions of one side but not the other.
Its easy to take pot shots from behind a cloak of incognito.
Real names please.
Show us the courage of your convictions.
The answer will no doubt be some more effite latin krappicus.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smurfside
It does not matter what my name nor yours nor anyone else on pprune.What matters is that we have debate on our future not stifled propaganda with one side telling us that anyone who dares to disagree with them are cowards and ill informed.
I imagine that a few in the office would love to know the names of people here but that is a waste of time.
I could not care less who you are but it’s fine if you do not agree with me.What I do care about would be the phone calls and abuse in the middle of the night from people who feel threatened by someone with a differing view.
What is important is that we discuss points of view but not distort the facts with omissions and mendacity and unfortunately that is what the faaa has done over the last 9 months and is encapsulated in the last newsletter by MM.
It does not matter what my name nor yours nor anyone else on pprune.What matters is that we have debate on our future not stifled propaganda with one side telling us that anyone who dares to disagree with them are cowards and ill informed.
I imagine that a few in the office would love to know the names of people here but that is a waste of time.
I could not care less who you are but it’s fine if you do not agree with me.What I do care about would be the phone calls and abuse in the middle of the night from people who feel threatened by someone with a differing view.
What is important is that we discuss points of view but not distort the facts with omissions and mendacity and unfortunately that is what the faaa has done over the last 9 months and is encapsulated in the last newsletter by MM.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion!!! Nice try
Nice try surfside6 but your diversion won't help the FAAA officials who are currently wiping the egg off their face over their failure to secure guarantees from the company to ensure a yes vote succeeded.
In anycase you seemed to have made a typo error with your staff number.
As qcc2 says a precendent for longer single multi and ultra long range sectors awaits us if we are foolish enough to vote yes.
VOTE NO
In anycase you seemed to have made a typo error with your staff number.
As qcc2 says a precendent for longer single multi and ultra long range sectors awaits us if we are foolish enough to vote yes.
VOTE NO
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Typo...
Thats my staff number .Had it for 26 years.
How long have you had yours?
Were you around during the SP dispute?
I suspect not.
The technology leap is the same.
The difference is we all pulled in the same direction(except those in the Girls Union).
There was none of this sniping going on.
The introduction of the bid system got ugly though with people like you poisoning pets.
But hey the bid system hasn't turned out too bad.
Well pay wise at least.
How long have you had yours?
Were you around during the SP dispute?
I suspect not.
The technology leap is the same.
The difference is we all pulled in the same direction(except those in the Girls Union).
There was none of this sniping going on.
The introduction of the bid system got ugly though with people like you poisoning pets.
But hey the bid system hasn't turned out too bad.
Well pay wise at least.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OPERATION TURKEY LEG
Still a nice diversion surfside but ohh yes I was around during the SP dispute of 81 when our union had some guts!!
I vividly remember an experienced FSD coming forward at one of the meetings whilst we were debating our next move with the company. He told us a story about his initial training with Qantas where for a week the trainees had to serve the board and their guests of an evening at Qantas House in Hunter Street. One night there was a plate of turkey legs left over and the boys were just waiting for everyone to leave so they could tuck in. One member of the board saw the boys eyeing the plate and was smoking a cigar. He stubbed the cigar out and picked up the full ashtray and dumped it over the top of the plate of turkey legs and ground it in. Then looked at the boys laughed and said "Enjoy them boys" and then walked out. This FSD said "And Qantas management has been doing this ever since". This was greeted with a huge round of applause. Someone made up some stickers and everywhere you went, everywhere you looked were this stickers with OPERATION TURKEY LEG along with the appropriate drawing. If you're still flying surfside you'd remember this I've certainly never forgotten it.
With them placing six Kiwis on BEFORE we vote Management are still doing it SO VOTE NO !!!!!!!!!!
I vividly remember an experienced FSD coming forward at one of the meetings whilst we were debating our next move with the company. He told us a story about his initial training with Qantas where for a week the trainees had to serve the board and their guests of an evening at Qantas House in Hunter Street. One night there was a plate of turkey legs left over and the boys were just waiting for everyone to leave so they could tuck in. One member of the board saw the boys eyeing the plate and was smoking a cigar. He stubbed the cigar out and picked up the full ashtray and dumped it over the top of the plate of turkey legs and ground it in. Then looked at the boys laughed and said "Enjoy them boys" and then walked out. This FSD said "And Qantas management has been doing this ever since". This was greeted with a huge round of applause. Someone made up some stickers and everywhere you went, everywhere you looked were this stickers with OPERATION TURKEY LEG along with the appropriate drawing. If you're still flying surfside you'd remember this I've certainly never forgotten it.
With them placing six Kiwis on BEFORE we vote Management are still doing it SO VOTE NO !!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and we have .....
The shortsighted in the 81 dispute and those who got hot under the collar in 88 were (as now)mercifully in the minority.
Go over to the Buena in Mosman on Saturday Afternoon and give VDD a piece of your mind.
That is if you can afford the neurones.
I am no fan of QF thuggery.But I am a realist.
Howard has given VDD what he wanted ...industrial reform.
You are not taking on VDD alone.
You are also taking on recent legislation.
I know when to fight.This ain't the time or the place.
Maybe after the next election.
You will vote Labor the next time ...Won't you?
Go over to the Buena in Mosman on Saturday Afternoon and give VDD a piece of your mind.
That is if you can afford the neurones.
I am no fan of QF thuggery.But I am a realist.
Howard has given VDD what he wanted ...industrial reform.
You are not taking on VDD alone.
You are also taking on recent legislation.
I know when to fight.This ain't the time or the place.
Maybe after the next election.
You will vote Labor the next time ...Won't you?
Last edited by TightSlot; 13th Dec 2005 at 08:00.