The QANTAS thread
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting questions are ...
Was someone unhappy with Kylie's performance ?
If so does that mean that LG is also on thin ice ?
Or was Kylie poached by a company willing to pay more money than scrooge air ?
Maybe Kylie was scared at the thought of having to negotiate with his friends in the faaa at the next EBA
or is this rumour number #568 so far this year...
Rumour #567 was that Nick aka son of steve was either pushed or finally had enough last week and is gone ...
or rumour #569 is that the departure of both Nick and Kylie are linked ....now that sounds like a good one!!!!
Was someone unhappy with Kylie's performance ?
If so does that mean that LG is also on thin ice ?
Or was Kylie poached by a company willing to pay more money than scrooge air ?
Maybe Kylie was scared at the thought of having to negotiate with his friends in the faaa at the next EBA
or is this rumour number #568 so far this year...
Rumour #567 was that Nick aka son of steve was either pushed or finally had enough last week and is gone ...
or rumour #569 is that the departure of both Nick and Kylie are linked ....now that sounds like a good one!!!!
Last edited by lowerlobe; 14th Feb 2006 at 19:08.
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 find it amazing that the Sith Lord ….Darth Dixon hires people from failed airlines or ones that have had to be rescued by their own government.
Why don’t we get some of our own fine examples of failed and corrupt management from the likes of HIH or One-tel…..Rodney and Ray would fit into the corporate life in the big rat like fingers in a glove...or maybe we will get another sheer nylon from the ranks of the faaa
Why don’t we get some of our own fine examples of failed and corrupt management from the likes of HIH or One-tel…..Rodney and Ray would fit into the corporate life in the big rat like fingers in a glove...or maybe we will get another sheer nylon from the ranks of the faaa
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concern with MHs departure is what info he takes to BA. From our point of view not much. It might be different from upper mgmts view depending upon what sensitive future strategy info he has knowledge of.
He and his mgmt team never did figure out to improve service you actually need more crew.This would deliver real service not a perception of it.
It is amusing to watch all the service minions in the office continually move the deck chairs in the hope they come across a formula that will deliver streamlined, consistent and timely service to the passengers.
So long as they get bookings and surveys dont complain too much i guess it wont change.
On another more interesting matter - yes Eden 99 could you please explain what you meant by your comment about a vote by the FAAA. What is the FAAAs position on this inequitable seniority bid system?
He and his mgmt team never did figure out to improve service you actually need more crew.This would deliver real service not a perception of it.
It is amusing to watch all the service minions in the office continually move the deck chairs in the hope they come across a formula that will deliver streamlined, consistent and timely service to the passengers.
So long as they get bookings and surveys dont complain too much i guess it wont change.
On another more interesting matter - yes Eden 99 could you please explain what you meant by your comment about a vote by the FAAA. What is the FAAAs position on this inequitable seniority bid system?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will be interesting…..
Eden ,guardian and Pegasus what is the faaa’s stand on the seniority issue ???
Apparently ,Eden thinks that not only do crew not need to have any say in the policies of the faaa but if you disagree with the faaa you are hysterical …and I thought the company was the only one with a spin department.
Just as a little survey now ,
Apart from the above mentioned …..who else voted YES ???.
With a number of months since the vote ,I have yet to meet anyone who has admitted to voting YES…a number have said they did not vote but not one yet has said they voted YES…
I’m curious..
Eden ,guardian and Pegasus what is the faaa’s stand on the seniority issue ???
Apparently ,Eden thinks that not only do crew not need to have any say in the policies of the faaa but if you disagree with the faaa you are hysterical …and I thought the company was the only one with a spin department.
Just as a little survey now ,
Apart from the above mentioned …..who else voted YES ???.
With a number of months since the vote ,I have yet to meet anyone who has admitted to voting YES…a number have said they did not vote but not one yet has said they voted YES…
I’m curious..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: cyprus
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bid System
In the next few years QF will experience both network growth and net gains of Aircraft.
This will lead to movement in the ranks.
Those that complain now about the bid system will have their perception changed as they become more senior.
There is no such thing as a perfect system of work allocation.
Someone always misses out.
An allocated system does not benefit junior crew.
You get a roster ..like it or lump it.
No chance at all of getting Christmas ,Birthdays,Grand Final,Mardi Gras or anything else off.
Rotational seniority or "squirrell caging"will work once every 7 BPs when you rotate to the top.
A large number of crew rely on the bid system to manage their lives.
My wife has a seniority of around 3000.She obtains around 75% of what she bids for...she is NOT a language speaker.
The figures bandied around in here are absolute rubbish.
Plucked out of the air by individuals who have consumed too much Cab/Sav.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT SYSTEM OF WORK ALLOCATION.
Start tinkering with what you have and you fall into the clutches of the company.
Just for the record I am in the middle of my category...I achieve 50% of what I ask for....which is way better than nothing under an allocated system.
This will lead to movement in the ranks.
Those that complain now about the bid system will have their perception changed as they become more senior.
There is no such thing as a perfect system of work allocation.
Someone always misses out.
An allocated system does not benefit junior crew.
You get a roster ..like it or lump it.
No chance at all of getting Christmas ,Birthdays,Grand Final,Mardi Gras or anything else off.
Rotational seniority or "squirrell caging"will work once every 7 BPs when you rotate to the top.
A large number of crew rely on the bid system to manage their lives.
My wife has a seniority of around 3000.She obtains around 75% of what she bids for...she is NOT a language speaker.
The figures bandied around in here are absolute rubbish.
Plucked out of the air by individuals who have consumed too much Cab/Sav.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT SYSTEM OF WORK ALLOCATION.
Start tinkering with what you have and you fall into the clutches of the company.
Just for the record I am in the middle of my category...I achieve 50% of what I ask for....which is way better than nothing under an allocated system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LL,
its a little reminiscent of the EBA prior to the last one. The one with all the holes in it by JB,TW and GB. No one voted for that either.
It is sad that we have an official who is ALWAYS critical, angry and furious at any one else with a differing view from their own viewpoint. It is reality they have the power to make decisions and agreements on our behalf. What is a concern is that some important agreements have been made without the members knowledge ie the divisional structure agreement. Members only became aware of it after the in-principle ink was dry. Of course who does what flying on what aircraft is just a day to day decision. The members dont need to be part of the process. Yes it was voted on. Unfortunately it was an EBA and we were told to except it all or bad luck. Had the three previous officials ok'd an agreement of such magnitude I'm sure MM would have been jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin.
Eden one send forth a survey on the bid system. Its long overdue!
its a little reminiscent of the EBA prior to the last one. The one with all the holes in it by JB,TW and GB. No one voted for that either.
It is sad that we have an official who is ALWAYS critical, angry and furious at any one else with a differing view from their own viewpoint. It is reality they have the power to make decisions and agreements on our behalf. What is a concern is that some important agreements have been made without the members knowledge ie the divisional structure agreement. Members only became aware of it after the in-principle ink was dry. Of course who does what flying on what aircraft is just a day to day decision. The members dont need to be part of the process. Yes it was voted on. Unfortunately it was an EBA and we were told to except it all or bad luck. Had the three previous officials ok'd an agreement of such magnitude I'm sure MM would have been jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin.
Eden one send forth a survey on the bid system. Its long overdue!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: cyprus
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Troll
Hawke Eye
You have been here 5 minutes advocating a change in the work allocation system.
The only winners in a change will be the Company.
You appear to be a management troll masquerading as a concerned crew member.
There are far more important issues that need to be addressed before we start tinkering with a system because a few individuals aren't happy.
I have learnt to live with it.
I have been junior in my category for 17 years...trip swapping and open time have been my good friends.
I just get on with it....I suggest you do the same.
Just be careful what you wish for.
You have been here 5 minutes advocating a change in the work allocation system.
The only winners in a change will be the Company.You appear to be a management troll masquerading as a concerned crew member.
There are far more important issues that need to be addressed before we start tinkering with a system because a few individuals aren't happy.
I have learnt to live with it.
I have been junior in my category for 17 years...trip swapping and open time have been my good friends.
I just get on with it....I suggest you do the same.
Just be careful what you wish for.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BID SYSTEM, JFK VOTE, DIVISIONAL FLYING AGREEMENT ETC
The following are several statements and observations, which are totally accurate about some of the postings on here during the last several days:
1) Lowerlobe i see you raise your head yet again after the humiliation you suffered over the JFK vote which established once and for all how totally unrepresentative and out of touch you are with the vast bulk of cabin crew.
Your statements such as you have not met anyone who voted for the JFK dispensation, further highlight how out of touch you are. 71% voted in favour and the "fact" that you can't find anyone who voted yes, shows you the unrepresentative circles that you mix in.
I'll give you a revelation lowerlobe, the tiny minority, in fact the miniscule few who post on pprune are often not representative of what crew think on any issue. The JfK vote is a classic demonstration of that, because you tend to get 1-3 people who are pushing a particular barrow.
I see the new year has not bought you any advancement in your knowledge or accuracy of issues. I see you make references yet again to Kiwi's being on the JFK shuttle crews- the FAAA never said that voting YES to the shuttle meant that these Kiwi crew will be taken off. What it said was that voting NO would result in ALL kiwi crew doing the JFK flying and therby taking LAX slots away from our crew.
I realise you and accurate statements don't go hand in hand, but that is why you are discredited.
2) Hawk Eye- your references to what is now called the Divisional Flying Agreement are interesting. People need to be reminded that the 3 previous FAAA senior officials were responsible in EBA6 for a situation where Long Haul had no access to the A330 OR TO THE new A380. What MM and the current oficials did as part of the new Divisional Flying Agreement was to secure the biggest slice of flying for Long Haul on the A330 and ALL the flying on the
A380 for Long Haul- a great outcome i would have thought.
3) In relation to the bid system Hawk eye, much of what you say makes sense. There are strongly opposing views, but what you have laid out in your arguments hawk eye are in fact reasoned and accurate observations.
I made comments about the FAAA organising a vote on the bid system in my previous post. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment directed at those who continually want a vote on every issue- even though that would be iimpractical and would lead to paralysis in decision making and worse still, a deadly outcome for crew (thats why no organisation in this country operates by referendums and ballots- whether a union or a business).
What i meant was that those who were shouting the loudest about having a membership vote on JFK(even though the FAAA said at the very beginning that the membership would decide that issue) seem to be the very ones who are the loudest in wanting the bid system to stay the way it is. I was making the point that these people now , funny enough, aren't demanding that the FAAA have a members vote to decide if the bid system should be changed.
T o directly answer you now hawk eye, the policy of the FAAA is quite clear in relation to the bid system. I have been to nearly all FAAA meetings since MM has led the union i.e. since March 2004- whenever this question has come up from a member- the response from our current officials has been consistent i.e. any changes must be member driven and have majority support.
To sum up, it is good that there are reasoned debates on any topic. What is not good is when you have individuals like lowerlobe who continually distort and misrepresent on issues, but then again he is in a small minority.
Those of you who want change to the bid system are entitled to push for that change. I know the senior leadership of the FAAA- they will act on this issue , including a vote of members if a substantial number of members approach the FAAA on this subject. Within the elected officias of the FAAA are differing opinions on this subject just as there are amongst the wider membership.
I hope my comments are of some benefit to those of you who come in here.
1) Lowerlobe i see you raise your head yet again after the humiliation you suffered over the JFK vote which established once and for all how totally unrepresentative and out of touch you are with the vast bulk of cabin crew.
Your statements such as you have not met anyone who voted for the JFK dispensation, further highlight how out of touch you are. 71% voted in favour and the "fact" that you can't find anyone who voted yes, shows you the unrepresentative circles that you mix in.
I'll give you a revelation lowerlobe, the tiny minority, in fact the miniscule few who post on pprune are often not representative of what crew think on any issue. The JfK vote is a classic demonstration of that, because you tend to get 1-3 people who are pushing a particular barrow.
I see the new year has not bought you any advancement in your knowledge or accuracy of issues. I see you make references yet again to Kiwi's being on the JFK shuttle crews- the FAAA never said that voting YES to the shuttle meant that these Kiwi crew will be taken off. What it said was that voting NO would result in ALL kiwi crew doing the JFK flying and therby taking LAX slots away from our crew.
I realise you and accurate statements don't go hand in hand, but that is why you are discredited.
2) Hawk Eye- your references to what is now called the Divisional Flying Agreement are interesting. People need to be reminded that the 3 previous FAAA senior officials were responsible in EBA6 for a situation where Long Haul had no access to the A330 OR TO THE new A380. What MM and the current oficials did as part of the new Divisional Flying Agreement was to secure the biggest slice of flying for Long Haul on the A330 and ALL the flying on the
A380 for Long Haul- a great outcome i would have thought.
3) In relation to the bid system Hawk eye, much of what you say makes sense. There are strongly opposing views, but what you have laid out in your arguments hawk eye are in fact reasoned and accurate observations.
I made comments about the FAAA organising a vote on the bid system in my previous post. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment directed at those who continually want a vote on every issue- even though that would be iimpractical and would lead to paralysis in decision making and worse still, a deadly outcome for crew (thats why no organisation in this country operates by referendums and ballots- whether a union or a business).
What i meant was that those who were shouting the loudest about having a membership vote on JFK(even though the FAAA said at the very beginning that the membership would decide that issue) seem to be the very ones who are the loudest in wanting the bid system to stay the way it is. I was making the point that these people now , funny enough, aren't demanding that the FAAA have a members vote to decide if the bid system should be changed.
T o directly answer you now hawk eye, the policy of the FAAA is quite clear in relation to the bid system. I have been to nearly all FAAA meetings since MM has led the union i.e. since March 2004- whenever this question has come up from a member- the response from our current officials has been consistent i.e. any changes must be member driven and have majority support.
To sum up, it is good that there are reasoned debates on any topic. What is not good is when you have individuals like lowerlobe who continually distort and misrepresent on issues, but then again he is in a small minority.
Those of you who want change to the bid system are entitled to push for that change. I know the senior leadership of the FAAA- they will act on this issue , including a vote of members if a substantial number of members approach the FAAA on this subject. Within the elected officias of the FAAA are differing opinions on this subject just as there are amongst the wider membership.
I hope my comments are of some benefit to those of you who come in here.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eden99
thanks for your comments, its a shame you aren't on the union.You obviously know someone who is and are quite knowledgable yourself.
This qantas forum thread has been almost dormant for days since the seniority issue has been raised. Obviously many of the regulars are senior and still hoping it will go away without further enflaming the topic or god forbid that it should get legs and run.
What eden99 says is important for the 80% who are effected. I know one senior f/a who bid for a trip with a friend and got the trip but not with their colleague.As stated earlier with instances like these up to 80% get effected.
Simon I'm glad you get something at half way seniority. That doesnt help your wife or anyone who for the last 5 years or longer who have got nothing, and have very little in the future until they achieve 25 years to look forward to.
Everyone, Simon says just wait and bear with it and learn to live with it. Im glad your not my husband - your poor wife. If you want to make an omellette sometimes you have to break a few eggs, have you ever rocked a boat? Im glad your not an official of the FAAA. or maybe you were - a former one. No im not a company collaborator as you accuse, just someone who has a different opinion to you who is looking at everones overall interests, including those junior to me.Its funny, we are all part of a union to give us a united strength, yet this issue is showing how truly concerned you are with your colleagues getting a fair go, or being treated equally. Or is it some are more equal than others.United on pay but nothing else maybe?????
I've realised in the last few days it is almost a crime to consider those junior or those who are not as well off as yourself. lets treat them as though they dont have an issue.
No, lets not play with it we could get something worse. Or maybe we might get something for everybody, both us and the company.It may even offer some job security - who knows? Change is both risk and opportunity. Change is what the world does. Change gives us variation. Maybe we need to consider a new system which will make us an attractive workforce and give everybody something. Simon you do realise for some unknown (or known) reason we are not as emloyably attractive as short haul. You do realise there are serious changes in the industrial relations arena.
You can either confront the new playing field and be constructive and productive or hide, do nothing, just gripe and hope it will magically disappear. Similar to the regulars on here over the last few days.
And no I am not on the union either, I am a member though.
thanks for your comments, its a shame you aren't on the union.You obviously know someone who is and are quite knowledgable yourself.
This qantas forum thread has been almost dormant for days since the seniority issue has been raised. Obviously many of the regulars are senior and still hoping it will go away without further enflaming the topic or god forbid that it should get legs and run.
What eden99 says is important for the 80% who are effected. I know one senior f/a who bid for a trip with a friend and got the trip but not with their colleague.As stated earlier with instances like these up to 80% get effected.
Simon I'm glad you get something at half way seniority. That doesnt help your wife or anyone who for the last 5 years or longer who have got nothing, and have very little in the future until they achieve 25 years to look forward to.
Everyone, Simon says just wait and bear with it and learn to live with it. Im glad your not my husband - your poor wife. If you want to make an omellette sometimes you have to break a few eggs, have you ever rocked a boat? Im glad your not an official of the FAAA. or maybe you were - a former one. No im not a company collaborator as you accuse, just someone who has a different opinion to you who is looking at everones overall interests, including those junior to me.Its funny, we are all part of a union to give us a united strength, yet this issue is showing how truly concerned you are with your colleagues getting a fair go, or being treated equally. Or is it some are more equal than others.United on pay but nothing else maybe?????
I've realised in the last few days it is almost a crime to consider those junior or those who are not as well off as yourself. lets treat them as though they dont have an issue.
No, lets not play with it we could get something worse. Or maybe we might get something for everybody, both us and the company.It may even offer some job security - who knows? Change is both risk and opportunity. Change is what the world does. Change gives us variation. Maybe we need to consider a new system which will make us an attractive workforce and give everybody something. Simon you do realise for some unknown (or known) reason we are not as emloyably attractive as short haul. You do realise there are serious changes in the industrial relations arena.
You can either confront the new playing field and be constructive and productive or hide, do nothing, just gripe and hope it will magically disappear. Similar to the regulars on here over the last few days.
And no I am not on the union either, I am a member though.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mark hassell?
this is my first post.
i have watched this site for six months.
can some one tell me what title mark hassell had
and what did he do in the company?
every vote we have had has followed the recommendation
of the faaa even when you can't find anyone who voted
"yes" so i expect seniority voting will follow the expressed
opinion of the faaa execs who are not exactly juniors
i have watched this site for six months.
can some one tell me what title mark hassell had
and what did he do in the company?
every vote we have had has followed the recommendation
of the faaa even when you can't find anyone who voted
"yes" so i expect seniority voting will follow the expressed
opinion of the faaa execs who are not exactly juniors
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One last thing simon, could you please tell us all how your wife at seniority 3000 gets 75 % of what she bids for. Are they all Africas? As 2000 above her are now scratching their heads at what they do wrong when they bid. I know the system, I know how it works and I know whos figures are rubbish - thanks for the laugh though
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawke Eye
My friend...you offer nothing but empty rhetoric.
If there had been no change over the last 23 years I would have left long ago.
You change the bid system...you change the work rules.
The first casualty will be the slip formula.Then you and your ilk will REALLY have something to complain about.
What is the essence of your concern....lack of destinations,can't get days off or you don't get paid enough?
You work ,you get paid and the rest is jam.
I am at the stage where I don't where I go as long as I have reasonable time at home with my family.
23 years of flying and I still go to Africa .(Not thru choice)
So what?
I still get paid.
You are pizzing into a fan and getting very wet.
If there had been no change over the last 23 years I would have left long ago.
You change the bid system...you change the work rules.
The first casualty will be the slip formula.Then you and your ilk will REALLY have something to complain about.
What is the essence of your concern....lack of destinations,can't get days off or you don't get paid enough?
You work ,you get paid and the rest is jam.
I am at the stage where I don't where I go as long as I have reasonable time at home with my family.
23 years of flying and I still go to Africa .(Not thru choice)
So what?
I still get paid.
You are pizzing into a fan and getting very wet.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eden…again as usual you are bending the truth…Everyone here knows that the faaa told us that unless we voted YES we would lose the flying to the AKL crew and even before the faaa were forced into holding a vote the company reneged and replaced 6 positions but here are some of the faaa’s newsletters..
WHY HAS THE FAAA AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION FOR THESE SHUTTLES?
1. The primary objective of the FAAA is to provide job security for our members. The transfer of our flying to overseas based crew (in this instance to NZ based crew) is not in the strategic interests of our membership or the long term viability of the Long Haul Division.
and….
The Company advised us that in order that Long Haul crew continue to operate the New York service, it would need slipping in New York to be discontinued and for the service to be done as a shuttle out of LAX. The Company is entitled to plan this sector up to 14 hours but since any shuttle would entail a duty of 14 hours 35 minutes, dispensation from the FAAA is required if Long Haul Australian crew are to be used.
and
• Withdrawal of the dispensation will result in NZ overseas based crew doing the shuttle. This will mean substantial displacement of our crew from LAX patterns.
And
The anonymous email refers to the fact that 6 AKL based crew will be on SOME LAX-JFK-LAX patterns…..
The operative word in that last sentence is the word “SOME”….as crew know the AKL crew are on every JFK shuttle…again another spin by the faaa on the facts…
Now your telling us the faaa never said we are to vote yes to prevent the JFK shuttles being crewed by AKL based crew?....
As I said before the vote the company wanted the dispensation and this was not about saving money by not slipping us in NewYork .The proof of this is that the company after it had received the dispensation has not replaced the AKL crew with Australian crew.
The company got what they wanted but what did we get…in a word shafted…
The vote should have been held by the AEC but was an inhouse vote.I can understand people wanting to vote YES after your scare campaign but I have not found one yet after nearly 3 months !!!!!
This is looking more like one of Joh’s genuine voting campaigns…
As for those of us who want a vote on important issues…you right we do …funny about that..The difference between a business and a union is that the business is run by a board or owner and they make the decisions.The union is supposed to be elected officials who represent the membership not dictate to the membership..this should be simple enough for even you to understand Eden..
To say individuals like myself misrepresent and disort the truth is beyond a joke and typical of those who are on a power trip and despise anyone who threatens that power.The faaa sent a newsletter out because they cannot stand anyone who voices a different opinion to themselves but like the press the faaa never lets the truth get in the way of a policy.
Hawkeye..Eden is on the union..read his posts..as well as guardian1 and I believe Pegasus..
On the seniority issue <i can understand both sides but before we say let's get rid of seniority bidding let's look at the alternatives and what proposals are put forward before anything else
WHY HAS THE FAAA AGREED TO PROVIDE DISPENSATION FOR THESE SHUTTLES?
1. The primary objective of the FAAA is to provide job security for our members. The transfer of our flying to overseas based crew (in this instance to NZ based crew) is not in the strategic interests of our membership or the long term viability of the Long Haul Division.
and….
The Company advised us that in order that Long Haul crew continue to operate the New York service, it would need slipping in New York to be discontinued and for the service to be done as a shuttle out of LAX. The Company is entitled to plan this sector up to 14 hours but since any shuttle would entail a duty of 14 hours 35 minutes, dispensation from the FAAA is required if Long Haul Australian crew are to be used.
and
• Withdrawal of the dispensation will result in NZ overseas based crew doing the shuttle. This will mean substantial displacement of our crew from LAX patterns.
And
The anonymous email refers to the fact that 6 AKL based crew will be on SOME LAX-JFK-LAX patterns…..
The operative word in that last sentence is the word “SOME”….as crew know the AKL crew are on every JFK shuttle…again another spin by the faaa on the facts…
Now your telling us the faaa never said we are to vote yes to prevent the JFK shuttles being crewed by AKL based crew?....
As I said before the vote the company wanted the dispensation and this was not about saving money by not slipping us in NewYork .The proof of this is that the company after it had received the dispensation has not replaced the AKL crew with Australian crew.
The company got what they wanted but what did we get…in a word shafted…
The vote should have been held by the AEC but was an inhouse vote.I can understand people wanting to vote YES after your scare campaign but I have not found one yet after nearly 3 months !!!!!
This is looking more like one of Joh’s genuine voting campaigns…
As for those of us who want a vote on important issues…you right we do …funny about that..The difference between a business and a union is that the business is run by a board or owner and they make the decisions.The union is supposed to be elected officials who represent the membership not dictate to the membership..this should be simple enough for even you to understand Eden..
To say individuals like myself misrepresent and disort the truth is beyond a joke and typical of those who are on a power trip and despise anyone who threatens that power.The faaa sent a newsletter out because they cannot stand anyone who voices a different opinion to themselves but like the press the faaa never lets the truth get in the way of a policy.
Hawkeye..Eden is on the union..read his posts..as well as guardian1 and I believe Pegasus..
On the seniority issue <i can understand both sides but before we say let's get rid of seniority bidding let's look at the alternatives and what proposals are put forward before anything else
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Butterfield 8,
DA1 means days away one, and NC57 means no carry over into day 57!
"what is the essence of your concern" good question . I thought I had already answered it. In the interests of those who haven't or can't figure it out it is the following.
My concern is that not all of us have the ability to blindly accept africa trips and no say with your days off unless you fly the hardest trip (jetlag) - Africa in the book.
My concern is that we all work as hard as each other. We all have an agreed wage, yet some(20%) get everything they desire because of a system that was implemented almost 20 years ago and very few had a say in it.
If we had all voted on this system or those that were their at the time (1988) we could understand why we have it. Just because a system was implemented does not mean that it is the only option or it can never be changed.
Its easy for you Butterfield after 23 years you get something at the cost of flying to Africa. What about those behind you that at the cost of Africa get nothing? All you say is thats too bad.
Are any of those who are effected by the fact they didnt sign on or join 23 years ago reading and understanding what Butterfield is saying to you.
He's happy enough with what he gets, how dare you want more! How dare you trust a union or Company to negotiate for you. For all those employed in the last ten years don't complain , your junior , you really have no rights, no cause, no justification for an equal share.
I trust the current union more than any other group of representatives of the aicca, afaa, or FAAA i have had represent me in the past.
Your rhetoric unfortunately isnt empty Butterfield. It is what will give resolve to those who are fed up by being discriminated against. It shows the arrogance and contempt you and others like you hold for those who have little in seniority.Or worse dare to threaten yours and their stranglehold on this unfair allocation of work called a seniority bidding system.
Will the FAAA or Company please put forth a survey. Its time the deadwood left this job and get an opportunity to re-appreciate what it is like for those at the bottom of the feed chain. Then they may appreciate how painful, unfair and outdated seniority for work allocation can be!
DA1 means days away one, and NC57 means no carry over into day 57!
"what is the essence of your concern" good question . I thought I had already answered it. In the interests of those who haven't or can't figure it out it is the following.
My concern is that not all of us have the ability to blindly accept africa trips and no say with your days off unless you fly the hardest trip (jetlag) - Africa in the book.
My concern is that we all work as hard as each other. We all have an agreed wage, yet some(20%) get everything they desire because of a system that was implemented almost 20 years ago and very few had a say in it.
If we had all voted on this system or those that were their at the time (1988) we could understand why we have it. Just because a system was implemented does not mean that it is the only option or it can never be changed.
Its easy for you Butterfield after 23 years you get something at the cost of flying to Africa. What about those behind you that at the cost of Africa get nothing? All you say is thats too bad.
Are any of those who are effected by the fact they didnt sign on or join 23 years ago reading and understanding what Butterfield is saying to you.
He's happy enough with what he gets, how dare you want more! How dare you trust a union or Company to negotiate for you. For all those employed in the last ten years don't complain , your junior , you really have no rights, no cause, no justification for an equal share.
I trust the current union more than any other group of representatives of the aicca, afaa, or FAAA i have had represent me in the past.
Your rhetoric unfortunately isnt empty Butterfield. It is what will give resolve to those who are fed up by being discriminated against. It shows the arrogance and contempt you and others like you hold for those who have little in seniority.Or worse dare to threaten yours and their stranglehold on this unfair allocation of work called a seniority bidding system.
Will the FAAA or Company please put forth a survey. Its time the deadwood left this job and get an opportunity to re-appreciate what it is like for those at the bottom of the feed chain. Then they may appreciate how painful, unfair and outdated seniority for work allocation can be!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa Kemo Sabay
Your emotion blinds you to reality Hawkeye.
I have no stranglehold over anything.
My seniority means nought in the bid system.
I look at what is available to me(diagnostic sheet) and bid accordingly.
A flight attendant at ten years has more flying available than me a CSS of 23 years.
The slipping formula would be the first thing tabled in any negotiation to change the bid system.
That formula is the only safeguard we have.That goes ,so does the job.
The bid system has more of a negative effect on me than it does on you.
I have learnt to live with it.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Come up with a practical alternative for me to consider.
You are very sparse on detail and long on lipservice
I have no stranglehold over anything.
My seniority means nought in the bid system.
I look at what is available to me(diagnostic sheet) and bid accordingly.
A flight attendant at ten years has more flying available than me a CSS of 23 years.
The slipping formula would be the first thing tabled in any negotiation to change the bid system.
That formula is the only safeguard we have.That goes ,so does the job.
The bid system has more of a negative effect on me than it does on you.
I have learnt to live with it.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Come up with a practical alternative for me to consider.
You are very sparse on detail and long on lipservice
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawkeye…
I can understand your point of view but unlike you I do not trust the current faaa leaders as they appear to have their own agenda just as the previous ones did.What have we achieved from voting YES for the JFK issue……absolutely nothing !!!!!!! But more importantly what have we lost…potentially a lot ,only time will tell…
Before you change the current system you have to make sure that the new system is better and is just not an opportunity for the company and those who tacitly support them whilst appearing to do the exact opposite.
Let’s look at ways to refine the seniority system first to see if we can achieve a better outcome before we dismantle a system that we all know the company would love to destroy.
In other words if the company wants to rid themselves of the seniority system and replace it with another ,it is not because the new system is better for us.
The company has on a number of occasions used the old divide and conquer routine. A perfect example of this is the system of demand days where the company can ruin any roster with total impunity. Less senior crews get clobbered with more and more of these days .If the rosters were run simply on seniority they would be ready in just a few days not more than a week as with the BP 243 ,they get junior crew so upset that they want to get rid of seniority.
Let’s not just give the company something they obviously want ,let’s come up with a system that we want and one that works for the majority .
the tech crew did a similar thing to stop the so called pacific barons from doing back to back LA trips and limited them to a specific number..why can't we do the same and have a limit of say 2 trips to the same destination per roster...just one idea
I can understand your point of view but unlike you I do not trust the current faaa leaders as they appear to have their own agenda just as the previous ones did.What have we achieved from voting YES for the JFK issue……absolutely nothing !!!!!!! But more importantly what have we lost…potentially a lot ,only time will tell…
Before you change the current system you have to make sure that the new system is better and is just not an opportunity for the company and those who tacitly support them whilst appearing to do the exact opposite.
Let’s look at ways to refine the seniority system first to see if we can achieve a better outcome before we dismantle a system that we all know the company would love to destroy.
In other words if the company wants to rid themselves of the seniority system and replace it with another ,it is not because the new system is better for us.
The company has on a number of occasions used the old divide and conquer routine. A perfect example of this is the system of demand days where the company can ruin any roster with total impunity. Less senior crews get clobbered with more and more of these days .If the rosters were run simply on seniority they would be ready in just a few days not more than a week as with the BP 243 ,they get junior crew so upset that they want to get rid of seniority.
Let’s not just give the company something they obviously want ,let’s come up with a system that we want and one that works for the majority .
the tech crew did a similar thing to stop the so called pacific barons from doing back to back LA trips and limited them to a specific number..why can't we do the same and have a limit of say 2 trips to the same destination per roster...just one idea