QANTAS discussions (All Bases) - Merged
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
youre right Galley HAg the majority dont give a toss, but they are the first to scream the loudest when things change.
The vote is in and those that took the time to vote have decide that this is what they want.
Let them have it.
The vote is in and those that took the time to vote have decide that this is what they want.
Let them have it.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats right about the apathy of crew,The biggest factor the company would get out of this is the low vote turnout.
The company then will obviously believe they can do anything with complete freedom
The company then will obviously believe they can do anything with complete freedom
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any Union, Any Issue
I think you will find in any union with any any issue voting is mostly around 30% to 40 %.of the membership
In comparison this is not a bad turnout.
Women generally do not participate in these things.
Even after a hounding from me my wife "forgot".
I was not impressed.
Women make up around 65% of Longhaul crew.
I am not being sexist.I am stating a known fact.
Women are almost indifferent to these things.
Take a look at the Teachers Federation.
Why are teachers paid a pittance?
Women generally are not militant.
This is a generalization of course, and I mean no disrespect to those women who do take an active interest in union/association affairs.
In comparison this is not a bad turnout.
Women generally do not participate in these things.
Even after a hounding from me my wife "forgot".
I was not impressed.
Women make up around 65% of Longhaul crew.
I am not being sexist.I am stating a known fact.
Women are almost indifferent to these things.
Take a look at the Teachers Federation.
Why are teachers paid a pittance?
Women generally are not militant.
This is a generalization of course, and I mean no disrespect to those women who do take an active interest in union/association affairs.
Last edited by captainrats; 21st Dec 2005 at 21:47.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: qcc4
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
youre right Captn Rats,
The 95% of women have no interest what so ever about what is going on! (boyfriends,hair appointments,soaps,magazines,gossip is the exception, oooppps sorry I forgot and Brad and Jen or whoever!)
However the 5% like galleyhag make up for the rest.
Good on you galleyhag its great to see such interest from from a fellow collegue wether they be male or female.
The 95% of women have no interest what so ever about what is going on! (boyfriends,hair appointments,soaps,magazines,gossip is the exception, oooppps sorry I forgot and Brad and Jen or whoever!)
However the 5% like galleyhag make up for the rest.
Good on you galleyhag its great to see such interest from from a fellow collegue wether they be male or female.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain rats arguments are right although that does not mean every woman has no interest. There are a lot of women that can and do fight for what they believe in and there are a number of men that only think as far as their next cappuccino.
However, the rot in our job started when the girls union sold us out when they sided with the company over the bid system.
I still cannot believe though that only 50% of crew voted over something that was so important an issue. One problem though was that the faaa had a monopoly on advertising a point of view through it's newsletters.
The vote is over though so let’s see how the company responds to our initiative and and being flexible.The company did say that they needed the dispensation to save money or they would replace Australian crew.
Well,now they have the dispensation when are they going to replace the AKL crew with Australians???
This is the first question the faaa should put to the company this morning and all crew should ask their managers.
This should also be put to the AIRC when discussing the crew seat issue and the LA hotel concerns...We have done our bit to ensure the airlines competiveness now what will the company do for us or is this another one sided deal ...again..
One of the faaa disciples eden or pro golfer or whoever asked if I would resign if the NO vote got up and crew lost flying.
Now that the YES vote has got up ,if the company takes anymore flying off us will they resign???.
The faaa have got their result now show us what you will do with this mandate and how you deal with the company..keep us informed as to when the company is re-instating the 6 Australian positions
However, the rot in our job started when the girls union sold us out when they sided with the company over the bid system.
I still cannot believe though that only 50% of crew voted over something that was so important an issue. One problem though was that the faaa had a monopoly on advertising a point of view through it's newsletters.
The vote is over though so let’s see how the company responds to our initiative and and being flexible.The company did say that they needed the dispensation to save money or they would replace Australian crew.
Well,now they have the dispensation when are they going to replace the AKL crew with Australians???
This is the first question the faaa should put to the company this morning and all crew should ask their managers.
This should also be put to the AIRC when discussing the crew seat issue and the LA hotel concerns...We have done our bit to ensure the airlines competiveness now what will the company do for us or is this another one sided deal ...again..
One of the faaa disciples eden or pro golfer or whoever asked if I would resign if the NO vote got up and crew lost flying.
Now that the YES vote has got up ,if the company takes anymore flying off us will they resign???.
The faaa have got their result now show us what you will do with this mandate and how you deal with the company..keep us informed as to when the company is re-instating the 6 Australian positions
Last edited by lowerlobe; 21st Dec 2005 at 22:09.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did it go at the AIRC today re the crew rest seats.
Were QF management telling everyone how the evil flight attendants wanted to have a rest before the six hours expired.
Im not in Aussie at present otherwise I would have love to attend this one.
Anyone have any news!
Were QF management telling everyone how the evil flight attendants wanted to have a rest before the six hours expired.
Im not in Aussie at present otherwise I would have love to attend this one.
Anyone have any news!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas says Roo's in top shape
By Julian Lee
December 19, 2005
Qantas claims its brand is the healthiest in its 85-year history and that Australians still call the Flying Kangaroo "home".
Despite negative press in the past year and increased competition from Virgin Blue and Emirates, everything is just fine at Qantas, says executive general manager, John Borghetti.
Far from weakening the Qantas brand, he said, the arrival of its low-cost stablemate Jetstar had actually strengthened it.
"It's stronger now than it has ever been in my time," said Mr Borghetti, who was once the airline's marketing director.
"Customer satisfaction levels in domestic are at the highest levels we have seen," he said, refusing to elaborate.
Three years ago when Qantas attempted to democratise its image by replacing the two different classes with one economy grade, its brand suffered.
"It was clear it did us some damage," he said.
The introduction of Jetstar as a cheaper alternative had allowed Qantas to occupy the high ground in quality, Mr Borghetti added.
"It strengthened it, not weakened it, as the Qantas brand was and indeed is perceived to be of a higher standard … our research is telling us that."
Consistency in marketing has paid dividends, he said.
Mr Borghetti claimed the anthemic advertising campaign "I Still Call Australia Home" resonated more with Australians today than when it first aired as a national brand ad in 1994. There were no plans to scale back the campaign, though a new one was not on the card for "quite some time".
The latest incarnation of the ad cost a reputed $10 million to make.
He said he saw no reason to react to Virgin Blue's recently launched loyalty program, Velocity, saying it was not as widespread nor as recognised as the Qantas program, which according to the company website has 4 million members worldwide.
It is now Friday 23 rd Dec and still no word here or on the faaa website about the commission hearing yesterday..or maybe it is confidential and we are not entitled to hear about it...????????
By Julian Lee
December 19, 2005
Qantas claims its brand is the healthiest in its 85-year history and that Australians still call the Flying Kangaroo "home".
Despite negative press in the past year and increased competition from Virgin Blue and Emirates, everything is just fine at Qantas, says executive general manager, John Borghetti.
Far from weakening the Qantas brand, he said, the arrival of its low-cost stablemate Jetstar had actually strengthened it.
"It's stronger now than it has ever been in my time," said Mr Borghetti, who was once the airline's marketing director.
"Customer satisfaction levels in domestic are at the highest levels we have seen," he said, refusing to elaborate.
Three years ago when Qantas attempted to democratise its image by replacing the two different classes with one economy grade, its brand suffered.
"It was clear it did us some damage," he said.
The introduction of Jetstar as a cheaper alternative had allowed Qantas to occupy the high ground in quality, Mr Borghetti added.
"It strengthened it, not weakened it, as the Qantas brand was and indeed is perceived to be of a higher standard … our research is telling us that."
Consistency in marketing has paid dividends, he said.
Mr Borghetti claimed the anthemic advertising campaign "I Still Call Australia Home" resonated more with Australians today than when it first aired as a national brand ad in 1994. There were no plans to scale back the campaign, though a new one was not on the card for "quite some time".
The latest incarnation of the ad cost a reputed $10 million to make.
He said he saw no reason to react to Virgin Blue's recently launched loyalty program, Velocity, saying it was not as widespread nor as recognised as the Qantas program, which according to the company website has 4 million members worldwide.
It is now Friday 23 rd Dec and still no word here or on the faaa website about the commission hearing yesterday..or maybe it is confidential and we are not entitled to hear about it...????????
Last edited by lowerlobe; 22nd Dec 2005 at 20:00.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting faaa office trick,dating this memo 22/12 and posting it on 23/12 but at least they have given us an update
22 December 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CREW REST SEATS – AIRC UPDATE
You would be aware that a long running dispute exists between Long Haul Crew and Qantas in relation to the provision of crew rest seats by the company. In particular, the Company’s view is that on flight duties under six hours, Qantas is not required to provide crew rest seats to long haul crew.
This morning the FAAA appeared in conference before Commissioner Raffaelli before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Commissioner did not issued Orders or Recommendations; however it was clear that he concurs with the view of the Company that they are not required to provide crew rest on flights with duties planned at less than six hours.
Qantas and the FAAA are clearly apart and further meetings have been set aside in January 2006 to discuss this matter. In the interim, the Company has agreed that the four crew rest seats on the Airbus and 767 will be the last sold and allocated to passengers. Further, the Company commits that it will not attempt to sell crew rest seats on 747 aircraft.
As a consequence, however, should a delay occur prior to departure and that delay, or known delay or rescheduled flight would extend the flight duty period to greater than six hours (including sign on to sign off), passengers would need to be offloaded from the crew rest seats.
On flights under six hours (that is sign on to sign off) the Company will not provide crew rest seats unless there is a delay, and it is highly likely that the duty will go over six hours.
We will keep you informed of any developments in the New Year.
The EBA says that crew must have 20 minutes rest allocated in the first 6 hours .It is my interpretation that means before the 6th hour is completed not after the 6th hours completion.
Since the office dwellers in QCC and other QF buildings have morning tea after 90 minutes of starting work and then 45 minutes lunch break 3 hours after that and then afternoon tea 2.5 hours after that then the commissioner is either one eyed, dyslexic or on someone’s payroll if he thinks it is reasonable for us to go for more than 6 hours before it is reasonable for us to ask for a break.Either that or our legal team is inept.
This is another perfect example of why I believe we should have voted NO.
The company will take the dispensation and every other benefit we give them and then shaft us at the first opportunity…When will some of us learn..
22 December 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CREW REST SEATS – AIRC UPDATE
You would be aware that a long running dispute exists between Long Haul Crew and Qantas in relation to the provision of crew rest seats by the company. In particular, the Company’s view is that on flight duties under six hours, Qantas is not required to provide crew rest seats to long haul crew.
This morning the FAAA appeared in conference before Commissioner Raffaelli before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Commissioner did not issued Orders or Recommendations; however it was clear that he concurs with the view of the Company that they are not required to provide crew rest on flights with duties planned at less than six hours.
Qantas and the FAAA are clearly apart and further meetings have been set aside in January 2006 to discuss this matter. In the interim, the Company has agreed that the four crew rest seats on the Airbus and 767 will be the last sold and allocated to passengers. Further, the Company commits that it will not attempt to sell crew rest seats on 747 aircraft.
As a consequence, however, should a delay occur prior to departure and that delay, or known delay or rescheduled flight would extend the flight duty period to greater than six hours (including sign on to sign off), passengers would need to be offloaded from the crew rest seats.
On flights under six hours (that is sign on to sign off) the Company will not provide crew rest seats unless there is a delay, and it is highly likely that the duty will go over six hours.
We will keep you informed of any developments in the New Year.
The EBA says that crew must have 20 minutes rest allocated in the first 6 hours .It is my interpretation that means before the 6th hour is completed not after the 6th hours completion.
Since the office dwellers in QCC and other QF buildings have morning tea after 90 minutes of starting work and then 45 minutes lunch break 3 hours after that and then afternoon tea 2.5 hours after that then the commissioner is either one eyed, dyslexic or on someone’s payroll if he thinks it is reasonable for us to go for more than 6 hours before it is reasonable for us to ask for a break.Either that or our legal team is inept.
This is another perfect example of why I believe we should have voted NO.
The company will take the dispensation and every other benefit we give them and then shaft us at the first opportunity…When will some of us learn..
Last edited by lowerlobe; 22nd Dec 2005 at 23:56.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAAA NEWSLETTER
22 December 2005
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CREW REST SEATS - AIRC UPDATE
You would be aware that a long running dispute exists between Long Haul Crew and Qantas in relation to the provision of crew rest seats by the company. In particular, the Company’s view is that on flight duties under six hours, Qantas is not required to provide crew rest seats to long haul crew.
This morning the FAAA appeared in conference before Commissioner Raffaelli before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Commissioner did not issued Orders or Recommendations; however it was clear that he concurs with the view of the Company that they are not required to provide crew rest on flights with duties planned at less than six hours.
Qantas and the FAAA are clearly apart and further meetings have been set aside in January 2006 to discuss this matter. In the interim, the Company has agreed that the four crew rest seats on the Airbus and 767 will be the last sold and allocated to passengers. Further, the Company commits that it will not attempt to sell crew rest seats on 747 aircraft.
As a consequence, however, should a delay occur prior to departure and that delay, or known delay or rescheduled flight would extend the flight duty period to greater than six hours (including sign on to sign off), passengers would need to be offloaded from the crew rest seats.
On flights under six hours (that is sign on to sign off) the Company will not provide crew rest seats unless there is a delay, and it is highly likely that the duty will go over six hours.
We will keep you informed of any developments in the New Year.
Written by Victoria Skinner - National Industrial Officer
and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary - International Division
Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CREW REST SEATS - AIRC UPDATE
You would be aware that a long running dispute exists between Long Haul Crew and Qantas in relation to the provision of crew rest seats by the company. In particular, the Company’s view is that on flight duties under six hours, Qantas is not required to provide crew rest seats to long haul crew.
This morning the FAAA appeared in conference before Commissioner Raffaelli before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Commissioner did not issued Orders or Recommendations; however it was clear that he concurs with the view of the Company that they are not required to provide crew rest on flights with duties planned at less than six hours.
Qantas and the FAAA are clearly apart and further meetings have been set aside in January 2006 to discuss this matter. In the interim, the Company has agreed that the four crew rest seats on the Airbus and 767 will be the last sold and allocated to passengers. Further, the Company commits that it will not attempt to sell crew rest seats on 747 aircraft.
As a consequence, however, should a delay occur prior to departure and that delay, or known delay or rescheduled flight would extend the flight duty period to greater than six hours (including sign on to sign off), passengers would need to be offloaded from the crew rest seats.
On flights under six hours (that is sign on to sign off) the Company will not provide crew rest seats unless there is a delay, and it is highly likely that the duty will go over six hours.
We will keep you informed of any developments in the New Year.
Written by Victoria Skinner - National Industrial Officer
and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary - International Division
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crew rest
What the EBA says is
"A flight attendant must not work more than six hours from the commencement of an operating flight duty period without commencing a rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period. For every additional four hours of operating flight duty following the first six hours the flight attendant must commence a further rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period. " -Clause 25.8.1
I t does not say that you "must have 20 mins rest allocated in the first 6 hours" as lowerlobe says.
lowerlobe, you are starting to do it again, namely just saying things that are incorrect. Thats perhaps why you are a flight attendant and not a Commisssioner of the AIRC who actually can read and understand what words mean.
"A flight attendant must not work more than six hours from the commencement of an operating flight duty period without commencing a rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period. For every additional four hours of operating flight duty following the first six hours the flight attendant must commence a further rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period. " -Clause 25.8.1
I t does not say that you "must have 20 mins rest allocated in the first 6 hours" as lowerlobe says.
lowerlobe, you are starting to do it again, namely just saying things that are incorrect. Thats perhaps why you are a flight attendant and not a Commisssioner of the AIRC who actually can read and understand what words mean.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eden99 ..we are truly lucky that we have a genius like you than can read and understand words like the commissioner….
Unfortunately,both of you are wrong!!!
"A flight attendant must not work more than six hours from the commencement of an operating flight duty period without commencing a rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period”
Have a look at what you just posted Einstein…especially the last part which says “such rest break to be included in the duty period”…That means to me that the duty period of 6 hours must include a rest break of 20 minutes..
Secondly, you are obviously not a CSM because if you were you would know that you cannot put every crew member off at the same time.
Therefore ,if you split the crew into 2 groups or more the time off has to commence at the latest at 5 hours and 40 minutes or ealier.
Otherwise the second half of the crew will have to commence their rest break after the mandatory 6 hour limit…
Unless both yourself ,the faaa ,the company and the commissioner are suggesting that all the crew go off at the same time,which means we need enough crew rest seats for all operating crew to be used at the same time .
There are 3 issues here and it appears that the faaa is not dealing with them,
1: Why are office workers with Qantas entitled to rest breaks at the most after 3 hours and we are not.
2: The interpretation of exactly when the rest break is due
3: That the company even after our conciliatory action of giving dispensation is pre-disposed to a continual attack on our job and our working conditions
Eden99 Who's side are you on??????
What were the faaa's arguments in this matter???
Chew on that smarty and get back to the commissioner and do your job of representing us…
Unfortunately,both of you are wrong!!!
"A flight attendant must not work more than six hours from the commencement of an operating flight duty period without commencing a rest break of 20 minutes, such rest break to be included in the duty period”
Have a look at what you just posted Einstein…especially the last part which says “such rest break to be included in the duty period”…That means to me that the duty period of 6 hours must include a rest break of 20 minutes..
Secondly, you are obviously not a CSM because if you were you would know that you cannot put every crew member off at the same time.
Therefore ,if you split the crew into 2 groups or more the time off has to commence at the latest at 5 hours and 40 minutes or ealier.
Otherwise the second half of the crew will have to commence their rest break after the mandatory 6 hour limit…
Unless both yourself ,the faaa ,the company and the commissioner are suggesting that all the crew go off at the same time,which means we need enough crew rest seats for all operating crew to be used at the same time .
There are 3 issues here and it appears that the faaa is not dealing with them,
1: Why are office workers with Qantas entitled to rest breaks at the most after 3 hours and we are not.
2: The interpretation of exactly when the rest break is due
3: That the company even after our conciliatory action of giving dispensation is pre-disposed to a continual attack on our job and our working conditions
Eden99 Who's side are you on??????
What were the faaa's arguments in this matter???
Chew on that smarty and get back to the commissioner and do your job of representing us…
Last edited by lowerlobe; 23rd Dec 2005 at 03:16.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lower lobe
I read it like you do!
From what I can see it states that the break must commence in that 6 hours.
Youre correct about half of the crew being on!
If then we go by the strict word of the EBA it means ALL crew must have their breaks when the assigned time arrives.
Nowhere in the EBA does it state that HALF the crew can have their breaks and the other half stays on.
Im sure lowerlobe that the FAAA would have stated what you wrote to the commissioner.
Anyway get MM to talk to GD and call in the favour for the dispensation, a small thing to ask for really!
I read it like you do!
From what I can see it states that the break must commence in that 6 hours.
Youre correct about half of the crew being on!
If then we go by the strict word of the EBA it means ALL crew must have their breaks when the assigned time arrives.
Nowhere in the EBA does it state that HALF the crew can have their breaks and the other half stays on.
Im sure lowerlobe that the FAAA would have stated what you wrote to the commissioner.
Anyway get MM to talk to GD and call in the favour for the dispensation, a small thing to ask for really!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it looks as though we have to do every thing to protect our working conditions and not rely on the faaa.
Let's go according to the EBA ,the commissioner and the company..
From now on ..all crew will have 20 minutes off at the same time...the PA will say "Ladies and Gentlemen ,all cabin service will be halted while the cabin crew are having their regulatory rest break"
If the company and the commissioner wants to be smart and the faaa can't do anything about it...we'll fix it
Let's see how the company likes that one
Let's go according to the EBA ,the commissioner and the company..
From now on ..all crew will have 20 minutes off at the same time...the PA will say "Ladies and Gentlemen ,all cabin service will be halted while the cabin crew are having their regulatory rest break"
If the company and the commissioner wants to be smart and the faaa can't do anything about it...we'll fix it
Let's see how the company likes that one
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
you miss the point...... as you did with the JFK issue.
Firstly, duty period refers to the whole duty period, not just the first 6 hours as you suggest.
Secondly, where you miss the point is simply this..... 5'40" etc is irrelevant. The Company is saying and the Commission has agreed that if the period duty i.e. from sign on to sign off is up to and including 6 hours then no crew rest entitlement exists..... just as the clause itself says. The 5'40" issue is only relevant if the duty period exceeds 6 hours... then of course half the crew need to commence the 20 minutes at the 5'40" mark.
Lowerlobe, you really have a very limited knowledge of our EBA or interpretation of industrial agreements. Stick to what you know rather continually embarrassing yourself in here.
Also, the FAAA argued that rest should not be limited to when the duty period only exceeds the 6 hour mark. Unfortunately, the umpire that you and i and the FAAA and Qantas has to listen to...has decided otherwise.
Seriously, you are obviously entitled to your view but before you start you carping and criticising you actually need to understand the issue and understand what the relevant clauses actually say.
Firstly, duty period refers to the whole duty period, not just the first 6 hours as you suggest.
Secondly, where you miss the point is simply this..... 5'40" etc is irrelevant. The Company is saying and the Commission has agreed that if the period duty i.e. from sign on to sign off is up to and including 6 hours then no crew rest entitlement exists..... just as the clause itself says. The 5'40" issue is only relevant if the duty period exceeds 6 hours... then of course half the crew need to commence the 20 minutes at the 5'40" mark.
Lowerlobe, you really have a very limited knowledge of our EBA or interpretation of industrial agreements. Stick to what you know rather continually embarrassing yourself in here.
Also, the FAAA argued that rest should not be limited to when the duty period only exceeds the 6 hour mark. Unfortunately, the umpire that you and i and the FAAA and Qantas has to listen to...has decided otherwise.
Seriously, you are obviously entitled to your view but before you start you carping and criticising you actually need to understand the issue and understand what the relevant clauses actually say.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m sorry it is my fault with my previous post. Apparently my arguments were beyond your comprehension.
I’ll try to explain them with a simple question that even you should understand.
For the sake of the argument I will use the company’s argument that we are not entitled to a rest break until the completion of the 6th hour although I do not agree with that interpretation.
How can crew achieve the regulated rest breaks at the sixth hour unless some of the crew start their break before the 6th hour.Unless of course you are suggesting we all go off at the same time????
You only embarrassed yourself with your reply
I’ll try to explain them with a simple question that even you should understand.
For the sake of the argument I will use the company’s argument that we are not entitled to a rest break until the completion of the 6th hour although I do not agree with that interpretation.
How can crew achieve the regulated rest breaks at the sixth hour unless some of the crew start their break before the 6th hour.Unless of course you are suggesting we all go off at the same time????
You only embarrassed yourself with your reply
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
Eden99 is correct. The problem seems you just don't understand issues as Eden correctly pointed out.
It's a simple concept that even you should be able to comprehend. Maybe Eden did not simplify it enough for you.
The Commission has determined that crew are not entitled to crew rest unless the duty period goes beyond6 hours.
Not hard to understand is it????
Therefore, no one will be starting their crew rest before 6 hours if in fact the duty period ends at the 6 hour mark.
The above explanation would be understood by a 5 year old, let's see if you get it this time.
The FAAA runs award awareness courses. You should complete 1 of these courses as it would assist you to understand our entitlements under our agreements.
Qantas has decided to use the letter of the clause and the Commission has agreed with them.
That should also be a simple concept to understand. There is no entitlement to crew rest if a tour of duty is not going to be longer than 6 hours. The words are very clear cut.
It's a simple concept that even you should be able to comprehend. Maybe Eden did not simplify it enough for you.
The Commission has determined that crew are not entitled to crew rest unless the duty period goes beyond6 hours.
Not hard to understand is it????
Therefore, no one will be starting their crew rest before 6 hours if in fact the duty period ends at the 6 hour mark.
The above explanation would be understood by a 5 year old, let's see if you get it this time.
The FAAA runs award awareness courses. You should complete 1 of these courses as it would assist you to understand our entitlements under our agreements.
Qantas has decided to use the letter of the clause and the Commission has agreed with them.
That should also be a simple concept to understand. There is no entitlement to crew rest if a tour of duty is not going to be longer than 6 hours. The words are very clear cut.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is scary Guardian1 is that you guys are representing us in court and to the company.
You do not seem to understand basic maths…and reality and that is that not all of us can go off at the same time.The commissioner has said that we are not entitled to a rest before the 6th hour however if the company does not supply crew seats for all crew to be used at the same time then we have to have shifts.
There are only 4 crew seats on the airbus and there are 10 crew.Even my children understand the concept that 4 does not go into 10 once, However you guys seem to want to cloud the issue to confuse everyone
Point out to the commissioner that if we followed his idea then the 3rd group of crew would not start their time off until 6hoursand 40 minutes and unless maths have changed since I was at school that is over 6 hours
I bet you did not point this out to the commissioner because if you did then he has to admit that the 6 hour point the company is using is false and not accurate.
The sector in question is 5 hours and 35 minutes and if there are 3 groups ,time off starts at 5 hours and 20 minutes.Is that basic enough for you to understand????
Then did you point out that no other Qantas employee has to wait 6 hours until they have a rest break ,not even tech crew???
How about you guys starting to have some backbone and sticking up for our rights and telling the company that if they don’t stop selling our crew rest seats then we will go off at the same time on other flights even if there are not enough seats.The company does not care about us so we should do the same…
Did you point out that we have just given dispensation to give the company flexibility and greater profit on the JFK run???
Did you point out that we have an EBA that Qantas continues to ignore and continually attack us???
Now the company has taken crew water off on Singapore/Sydney sectors and there maybe others…
The faaa strategy of appeasement does not seem to be working well does it!!!!!
Who’s side are you guys on??????????
You do not seem to understand basic maths…and reality and that is that not all of us can go off at the same time.The commissioner has said that we are not entitled to a rest before the 6th hour however if the company does not supply crew seats for all crew to be used at the same time then we have to have shifts.
There are only 4 crew seats on the airbus and there are 10 crew.Even my children understand the concept that 4 does not go into 10 once, However you guys seem to want to cloud the issue to confuse everyone
Point out to the commissioner that if we followed his idea then the 3rd group of crew would not start their time off until 6hoursand 40 minutes and unless maths have changed since I was at school that is over 6 hours
I bet you did not point this out to the commissioner because if you did then he has to admit that the 6 hour point the company is using is false and not accurate.
The sector in question is 5 hours and 35 minutes and if there are 3 groups ,time off starts at 5 hours and 20 minutes.Is that basic enough for you to understand????
Then did you point out that no other Qantas employee has to wait 6 hours until they have a rest break ,not even tech crew???
How about you guys starting to have some backbone and sticking up for our rights and telling the company that if they don’t stop selling our crew rest seats then we will go off at the same time on other flights even if there are not enough seats.The company does not care about us so we should do the same…
Did you point out that we have just given dispensation to give the company flexibility and greater profit on the JFK run???
Did you point out that we have an EBA that Qantas continues to ignore and continually attack us???
Now the company has taken crew water off on Singapore/Sydney sectors and there maybe others…
The faaa strategy of appeasement does not seem to be working well does it!!!!!
Who’s side are you guys on??????????