cartexchange

thanks ozskipper,
I just wanted confirmation from what I heard, however the rumour is still going strong.
Saw a few LHR crew in SIN and they are furious!
Are you sure!
Maybe your manager should put something out in writing to calm the nerves! as there is a great deal of unrest amongst the ranks! after all you don't want your "satisfaction" rate to fall any further!
On another note!
JBM you have resurfaced from hibernation! only to find you have run out of face paints! now get back under that rock !

qfcsm

So what else can our beloved FAAA give away?

Crew rest on long haul aircraft has been with us as long as I can remember and that's around 20 years.

So how did the just FAAA let it slip away and we aren't even in EBA negotiations.
And I suppose they will blame the commission saying that they are bound by its decision.

Enough already.... what's next. Slip formula, overtime?
Hey you know they may even give away our pay and say it's to protect our jobs...

Hey lurker, that guy you mentioned on the 4th floor left there a year and a half ago. I have it on good authority the culprit behind the crew rest thing was Suzanna Holdon and Niomi what's her name.

Don't matter now anyhow cause its gone...

Guardian1

For a start qfcsm, perhaps the FAAA can give you away...... that would be an excellent start.

It's been said in here several times by various people including me that if people want to criticise that is fine as long as they know what they are actually talking about.

Crew rest was not "given" away by anyone. There is no entitlement to crew rest, until 6 hours is reached. That has always been the case, EXCEPT THAT QANTAS DID NOT CHOOSE TO PUSH THE ISSUE UNTIL NOW.

So before you unleash that ignorant mouth of yours qfcsm you ought to actually understand what you are talking about.

It is tiresome having to continually correct the anti-FAAA tiny minority that lurk in this website.

The saving grace is that capable people run the FAAA, and that the vast majority of cabin crew in L/H support the FAAA and its leadership. What a diasaster it would be if people like qfcsm ran the FAAA - people who don't even understand the basics.

OCCR

so Guradian, you are avoiding a question that has been posted here.
DId a senior FAAA official on the National day of protest do a One day trip after geting back from the UK?
Or better still I will simplyfy it:, Did this person work on the day of national protest?
Yes or NO~

qcc2

guardian1 can you confirm that the pilots have done a deal with qf on the lax allowance, which leaves us hanging out to dry,again.

Pegasus747

OCCR,

why dont you call the FAAA and ask the person concerned if its something that concerns you.....


Otherwise put up or shut up

Pegasus747

and as for the pilots reaching agreement over Los Angeles where are you getting your information from....they dont seem to know anything about an agreement...

Guardian1

I can confirm NO deal has been done by the pilots over the LAX allowance issue.

The FAAA and AIPA(the pilots union) are working closely together on this issue. This matter is still in dispute between QF and us (FAAA and AIPA).

qcc2

thanks guardian1 for clearing up. having said that why would captains who just came from a briefing with the qf gm in a port mention it quitely to certain cabin crew? i wonder

ozskipper

No problem. I don't know what they're whining about as everyone is well aware of who got CSM and CSS. Most of the appointments were well received from what I hear. Of course there are always going be sour grapes, but that's to be expected with any process I think.

I'm not sure that I agree that there's a great deal of unrest amongst the ranks - I haven't experienced it as such. But then again, I don't spend a lot of time around the base or with other crew. Busy having a life outside of Qantas

onQ

Could someone from shorthaul give us an update of how your EBA negotiations are going - and what the general crew reaction is to it.
I understood there were to be no changes to the regional flying agreement in the new EBA but am now hearing that there is an unpublicised clause in there, allowing the company to pre-allocate 3 language speakers to each regional pattern.
If this is true - it sounds like a bit of a dangerous path to be heading down since the majority of 'language speakers' are recently recruited MAM casuals.
In effect - 30% of regional flying will be outside of the bidding system - unavailable to permanent crew.
I also hear that the carrot being dangled is more regional flying being transferred from longhaul to shorthaul if this is approved and the current problem of having no language speakers on regional flights is solved...
Would be interested to hear if this is just rumour - or fact!

cokecropduster

Yeah onQ... the new EBA (that hopefully will not get up) does have a clause that states:

1a. One language required on the aircraft - a max of 35% of total crew.
1b. More than one language required - a max of 50% of total crew.

And of course the company can change this to their liking. (mutual agreement actually.... ha ha)

Now excuse me I am going to steal someone elses chocolate to help THEM get used to not getting one in their soon to be missing lunchbox.


Another rumour from a good source.... SYD Maintenence is moving to Avalon. The decision was made quite some time ago but they are waiting till after the games and Easter.

Bad Adventures

HOT OF THE PRESS

QANTAS announced today it was cutting up to 480 jobs by closing its heavy maintenance operations in Sydney, raising the prosect of severe disruption to next week's Commonwealth Games if unions follow through with threatened industrial action.
The airline said today the B747 maintenance operations would close in May and the decision follows a review of all its aircraft engineering operations.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said the airline planned to achieve savings of about $100 million a year from restructuring all of its engineering operations, principally through consolidation, process improvements and more flexible work rules.
Union reaction has not yet been announced but leaders have threatened potentially crippling industrial action with just days to go before the Commonwealth Games.
Mr Dixon said the review would initially mean Qantas invested in, and retained, its wide-body heavy maintenance facilities in Australia.
"A longer term commitment to retaining the operations in Australia will depend on Qantas achieving competitive benchmarks with the larger global Maintenance Repair and Overhaul providers (MROs) now dominating world aviation.
Advertisement:
"Retaining three wide-body maintenance facilities in Australia is no longer viable under this scenario. We have one chance to make this work and we are determined to succeed."
The Federal Government has warned Qantas that it considers it strongly in the national interest for the heavy maintenance operations to remain in Australia.
Mr Dixon said Qantas had to be competitive in every area in which it invested as the company moved towards a cost base that could ensure profitable operations with an oil price above $US60 a barrel.
He said the closure of the Sydney base would result in the loss of about 480 jobs.
"However, through re-deployment the number of people who leave the company as a result of this decision could reduce to around 340."
Mr Dixon said the review at Qantas Engineering would mean:
Heavy maintenance for Qantas' Boeing 747 fleet being transferred from Sydney to the airline's base in Avalon, Victoria, with an increase in employment opportunities at Avalon.
Heavy maintenance for the B767 fleet to continue at the airline's new purpose-built facility in Brisbane, also with increased employment opportunities.
A review in the next six months of the airline's narrow-body aircraft heavy maintenance operations, now out at Tullamarine in Melbourne.
An investment of about $50 million in infrastructure and technology to aid the restructuring.
Qantas Engineering seeking third-party work within the region when the restructuring was complete.
A commitment to retain a comprehensive apprentice program for the training of future aviation engineers in Australia.
Mr Dixon said the decision to close the airline's Sydney heavy maintenance base, after more than 55 years of operation, was regretted, but necessary.
"We have severe space limitations at Sydney and the limitations will increase in future years," he said
"Following this decision, we will still have more than 2900 people employed in engineering in Sydney as well as almost 18,000 Sydney-based staff in other departments.
"We would need to vacate by 2009, or 2010 at the latest, even if the Sydney base had provided the most efficient outcome for Qantas.

flyagain1day

From what I understand this is the start of things to come. Its a sad day for many people. Try and keep your chins up.

OCCR

No guardian, why would I want to call the FAAA office,
Why don't you post the answer here, Go on!
Did this FAAA official work on the National Day of protest when he was scheduled to be off..
Well why wont you post the answer?
I wonder why!

Pegasus747

i guess the reason guardian hasnt answered the question is because he perhaps doesnt know.

The reality is these are anonymous forums and to discuss a matter pertaining to an individual where that person cannot respond would be improper thats why the suggestion was to ask the person concerened. In that way you will know for sure from the person concerned rather from a source that cannot be confirmed and is anonymous

OCCR

thanks for your reply pegasus, but guardians replies are annoying.
He claims to know everything that goes on in the FAAA, surely he knows the answer.
The reason why he wont reply is that he knows its true and he has no comeback for this disgusting action.
Its a hot topic amongst crew at the moment and everyone is appalled.
Come on guardian I'm waiting for your reply!
Tell you what I will give you a way out, why dont you tell us that you cannot answer that question as it will incriminate that individual!
there you go we all will know what that will mean!

Pegasus747

the individual did work as i asked him the question. He said that several FAAA officials were going and were on the ground on FAAA leave and some on days off, and that he was pay protected and worked that day. He did an auckland day trip to offset pay protection..... i guess when FAAA officials sit in the office they get critisised for not flying

The official concerned said to me that not one flight attendant has raised it with him at all and was surprised that it was even being discussed. His comment to me was well i guess i understand their sentiment in expecting all officials to be there but sometimes its hard to juggle flying and FAAA duties.

I asked him how he felt about working on that day and he said to me that he felt that in hindsight he probably should have dropped the 15 hours pay protection but that would have been about 800 or 900 bucks which he was sure his members would understand..

he indicated that he would discuss it with anyone that wanted to talk about it and wished that people raised their concern with him directly so that he could discuss it

lowerlobe

Can anyone of the faaa union reps here explain how the faaa OH & S gave approval for the new Y/C procedures of carrying a tray of drinks in one hand and a torch in the other in a pitch black cabin…so much for a zero injuries policy

Pegasus...I also like your spin on why the senior faaa official decided to work on a day off when he could have represented the crew that elected him on a day that was organised by the ACTU and the opposition.

I think your talents are wasted in the faaa office,you should get a job in a PR office

OCCR

thanks for your reply Pegasus,
I knew the answer as people have been discussing it, I just wanted it confirmed.
Very disappointing I must say.
As far as people discussing it with him, they wont talk to him about it as he simply shouts them down and what is the point.
Pay protection can be offset in many ways!
Pay protection does not have to be offset the day after coming back from a LHR trip and specially on such an important day as that day was.
Remember the old saying " leading by example"
Anyway its in the past I'm sure he wont make that same mistake.
I suppose we have " Forgive but not forget"