Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Other Aircrew Forums > Cabin Crew
Reload this Page >

QANTAS Discussions

Cabin Crew Where professional flight attendants discuss matters that affect our jobs & lives.

QANTAS Discussions

Old 4th Mar 2006, 06:49
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern Suburbs - NSW
Posts: 34
Internal QF secondments-any news?

Has anyone heard from CC recruitment re the 12 mnth secondment positions we have been waiting 18months for?
Were supposed receive communication end of Feb/beginning March about what was happening
Alotta is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2006, 08:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 83
I had interviews etc early-mid last year, told would be in contact FEB-MAR this year re medical,reference checks etc however no news. Sent an email to QF recruitment with the address they gave me if I had any questions[that I recieved in July]but it got returned as no such address. Mabye we should buy lotto tickets, got just as much chance of winning that than getting a job with QF. All very dissapointing!!
Grove is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 09:20
  #3 (permalink)  

You Think, Therefore I Am
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 3,587
QANTAS Discussions

EBA's, T's & C's and anything else that bugs you
TightSlot is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 11:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 22
Qantas UK website not working !

Hi Guys...

I want to apply for Qantas UK but the website www.qantascabincrewuk.com is not working ! !

Is there any other way to apply ? Is there a number for UK Office i can call ...

Thanks everyone
vincente is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 14:00
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bronte
Posts: 73
corporate brain -washing

I have just bumped into a CSM exiting one of those corporate psychology and human resources 2 day workshops. He seemed pretty bashed up - a shakey, insecure mess. He actually came across as totally paranoid -reckoned they were going to use the videos to clause 11 him -said that being filmed all day had made him totally insecure and he may have said some "anti-company , anti - management " commments that will be used against. When other CSMs were forced to rip into him in a critique session he broke down.
He will now psychologically be rebuilt in the company image.
The last time I heard of psychological techniques such as this was in Nazi Germany or under Mao's Cultural Rev'n "re -education "programmes.
Its a disgrace! Has the FAAA been allowed to evaluate this course content prior to members beng subjected to it?
Our onboard mangers are emerging from the greatest mushroom farm yet pressed onto cabin crew.
"Crew caring for crew" - this "Corpsych" brain washing needs to be exposed for what it is -a new low point in manipulating our workforce
lurker@R5 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 18:50
  #6 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 65
Posts: 2,346
Pegasus,

You have not answered my question..

Did the S/H FAAA commission a fatigue expert who concluded that the trip
SIN/DRW/ADL/SYD was dangerous because of fatigue and that instead of changing the trip the company just lumped L/H with it ?

Not only that but the trip now has MEL included in it !!!!

If this is true who is the fatigue expert?
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 19:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 95
CSM day

I did the CSM day weeks ago and it's ok.
I'm not saying it was great but certainly nothing to worry about.
The videoing was nothing more than we have done before.
And please, I've not gone "company" - it's the old rule 'just play the game'!

qfcsm is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 20:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Fatigue study
I spoke to a union official shortly after the so called fatigue study was done.
It was done using a computer model. The person who actually did the study did not fly on any sector, did not attach any measuring devices to crew, did not carry out any sort of breathing, blood or fitness tests on any crew member prior to them flying or post flight,did not evaluate or measure any crew member or members meauring differing sectors, time changes,actual jet lag etc.
How a computer model can say a JFK is not arduous proves what a farce the fatigue study is. How any union can endorse such a study is bewildering.
It is about as farsical as senior union rep saying its ok for officials to break the rules if your a friend of guardian.
The recent posts have many of us reading them around the world reeling in a state of shock.
I was told by a crew member to log on to have a look at what has been now openly admitted and condoned by our union. One thing this double standard has caused is that this site will be very well read over the next few weeks.Our union leaders have proved thay are no better than those they have previously criticised. And NO I am not a former official. It appears anyone who makes a criticism is either a friend of former officials or is a former official. I am neither. I am disgusted and dissapointed.For those who are unaware of the double standard I am referring to please refer to the previous Qantas thread.
hawke eye is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 20:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: qcc4
Posts: 41
hawkeye
I'm in the same boat as you.
I am totally disgusted by the actions of the FAAA, but what really gets up my nose is the replies from Guardian and CO, how they can sit there and justify this is beyoind me! they really think that the FAAA membership must be so dumb and stupid that they are willing to beleive anything these goons release.
Galley chatter over this issue is geting very heated,and the sad part is NO one and I mean NO one has defended the actions of that FAAA official.
I too have been telling people to read this site and many have been referring it to me as well.
During a union meeting it amazed me how the "leadership" sat there and endorsed the JFK shuttle.
If you are correct Hawkeye about the computer simulation, then any faith that I had in this current regime at the FAAA has totally deminished.
Looks like we are all alone against the brutality of the visitors.
Shame on you FAAA!
By the way, I am not a former official nor am I in any way associated with the previous lot, Although from your posts Guardian you will automatically assume this!
crew-use-only is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 20:53
  #10 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 65
Posts: 2,346
FAAA and it's ministry of information press releases

The so called fatigue study was as Hawke Eye called it a “farce”

There was no study done,no crew members tested,no real scientific study carried out at all but the FAAA endorsed it because it fitted in with their plan to give dispensation away.

Undoubtedly ,the faaa officials here will respond with a post telling us that the fatigue expert is exactly that and his findings should be heeded.

Whenever you meet a rep of the faaa ask them

1:How many crew were involved in the test ?

2:How many trips were these tests carried out on ?

3:What were the parameters of the study.in other words what functions were measured..Time away from base,amount of sleep prior to leaving home,sleep achieved before the shuttle in LA,rest time during shuttle etc…because the tech crew study did all of these and more and it is still being evaluated unlike the faaa study which sounds like it was carried out with a pattern book and a pen and paper.

The quick answer to all of the above is NONE

You were even supposed to be telepathic to know the study was carried out and the report was for reading in the office...

Now I am told the S/H faaa carried out it’s own fatigue study of the SIN/DRW/ADL/SYD sector and claimed they could not do it because it was too tiring,which I admit I believe it is but instead of changing it they gave it to L/H.

Is the fatigue expert the same person and has the L/H faaa done anything about us being lumped with it ?.......at least the S/H faaa seems to look after it’s members..and our boys say they field calls each week from S/H crew wanting to join L/H faaa.

The L/H faaa and it’s newsletters sound just like the Iraqi ministry of information and it’s farcical press conferences.

As with the fatigue study the dispensation is also a farce…has the company given back the 6 positions to Australian crew ?

Has the faaa even asked if the 6 positions be given back now that the company received it’s dispensation ?

Now we have the crew rest debacle and the latest rort with a senior official working the day after a LHR trip and not representing the faaa at a meeting organised by the ACTU..

All we receive from the faaa in response is abuse and hollow rhetoric..what hope do we have in the next EBA ?

As with Hawke Eye ,I am neither a previous faaa official nor a friend of one ,I am a crew member who is concerned with the direction the faaa is taking us.
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 20:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Is that true Guardian, did short haul conduct this study as lowerlobe states.
Is this true that it was given over to long haul.

I too have to make a disclaimer that I am in no way associated or linked in any way nor do I talk to any previous officials.
cartexchange is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 21:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
to Cartexchange and Lowerlobe

The domestic Division did not engage a fatigue expert at all. In fact the company flexes the flying between LH and SH and they could easily get it back in pattern planning.

At the moment LH Crew are getting it. I asked one of our OH&S reps if there are any ICANS from crew who are operating the flights about fatigue etc and there has not been one.

I think that the only thing the OH&S people can deal with is impiracle evidence. Whilst the FAAA and OHS can complain about percieved faitigue on certain tours of duty..it is necessary for crew to supply the evidence.

i get the concern however and have asked the OH&S rep to see if there is any ICAN data at Qantas on the tour of duty..

Hope that answers the question
Pegasus747 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 22:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 155
A Good Giggle

You have to laugh at these turkeys.
‘Oh I’m not a previous FAAA official!! Oh! and I’m not an ex FAAA official either!! But not me! Not me!!’
It is like the Iraqi Information Minister ‘We are repelling the invaders!! The war is over!!! I mean it’s just hilarious! Oh and of course I must an FAAA official!! Yea!!
Talk about a classic case of MSB. Anyway at least these jokers provide a bit of humor. Thank God nobody takes the crap that they write seriously.
Bad Adventures is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 23:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Bad adventures
your right there is often a lot of crap on here from time to time and it is humourous. The facts are what is a concern.

Fact, an FAAA senior official worked the day after a long london trip. Fact this occurred the same day as a National UNION ORGANISED protest march.

Fact, the fatigue study was based on a computer model, Not on assessing actual QF LH cabin crew on actual trips.

Fact, gaurdian behaves like rumplestiltskin frothing at the mouth at any who dare criticise.

Fact, guardian a senior officail condones crew breaching MBT because others have done it.

Bad adventures, you may laugh but these issues are no joking matter.

Your attempt to redirect the readers about who is and isnt former officials is pathetic.Its also irrelevant.

Whats relevant are the FACTs. The only ones laughing are our fellow unions and the Company. The Company officials will have a very difficult time holding a straight face the next time any official raises the issue of OH&S and arduous duties after what has been condoned on here. You may well laugh BAD or is it Guardian ( as stated earlier its irrelevant whom ever you area) but crew reading this around the world are shaking their heads in disbelief.
Thanks for setting and upholding a standard that gives us some cred when we have OH& S discussions with the Company - NOT!
The hole you officials have dug on here in the past few days is one you will never be able to climb out of with your integrity or credibilty intact.
hawke eye is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2006, 23:36
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 174
Yada Yada Yada

Hawkeye
When are you standing for election?
You seem to have all the answers.
Not to mention all the criticism of everything and everyone.
argusmoon is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2006, 01:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Argus,
this is a forum, where discussion can take place.
Read the previous posts. The best you can do is have a go at someone who has voiced an opinion. Everybody, dont dare voice your opinion or suggestions on here Argus doesnt like it.
Everbody Argus is singling me out. With all the many , many others who post on here why single me out? I have touched a raw nerve with some facts that he would rather be associated with previous FAAA officials as opposed to the current officials.
No, unlike guardian I am not going to accuse you of being an FAAA stooge , ill let the readers decide for themselves what brought your attack on. Its pretty obvious. Yes,if I were an FAAA official I would be running for cover. By the way up the track it is beginning to be the latest rumour. Is it true? Did it really happen? A sad day for our association.
Argus no i dont plan to run for election, no I dont believe i have all the answers. I do know right from wrong!
hawke eye is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2006, 01:53
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 155
Relax Big Fella!!!

‘Your attempt to redirect the readers about who is and isn’t former officials is pathetic. It’s also irrelevant.’

I mean Wow!!! Woo!! Didn’t realize I was attempting to redirect the readers. I’ll try and be more careful next time, I mean I really will! I will!

Wow! Hawke Eye slow down big fella! I think you better lie down, take a Bex and ease of that gas peddle buddy, you’re going to give yourself an ulcer! Please keep posting though it’s a bloody good laugh! I see you couldn’t resist the old ‘BAD or is it Guardian’ call.

Oh and by the way if it’s irrelevant about who is and isn’t a former official then you better take it out of your post back up the page because you’ve just contradicted yourself.
Ya Silly Billy!!!
Bad Adventures is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2006, 01:54
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Hawkeye

With all the huge and complex issues confronting us, including:-

- Workchoices and its effects on cabin crew
- Qantas' determination to restructure its operations to achieve a lower cost structure and what this means for its most expensive cabin crew ( namely L/H)
- the need to restructure and re-integrate both divisions of the FAAA
-the need to produce a more attractive L/H to prevent forced redundancies
- a possible review of amendments to the bid system to forestall forced changes by the Company

and a whole host of other pressing and complicated issues, some in here like Hawkeye and cartexchange can only continue to babble about a FAAA official who worked( as he is entitled to do) on a day in order to offset pay protection!

The suggestion that "crew are reeling in shock" about this non-event is laughable. Talk about getting comic relief from some clowns who post in here.

NOT 1 PERSON HAS CONTACTED THE FAAA ABOUT THIS BEAT UP, SUCH IS THE "REELING IN SHOCK".

What is noteworthy is that Hawkeye who apparently is so shocked about this , has not contacted the FAAA either. The level of vaudeville and hypocrisy knows no bounds by those in here pretending they are not previous officials or friends of those incompetents.

The good part is that the FAAA is in the hands of very competent and experienced officials, who contiinue to fulfill all their promises to crew and who continue to protect crew from a fate that the engineers are about to experience.

Thankfully, the few fellow travellors of the former officials in here, aren't and will never be in a position to implement their zany suggestions.

The industrial policy and strategy of the FAAA is in good hands, and i suggest the malcontents in here who only represent themselves and nobody else stick to commenting about matters they understand, rather than continually making fools of themselves.

Maybe some of you should run for election next time around, i'm sure MM, AS and SR would have fun carving you up like thanksgiving turkeys.
You could run on a platform of saying no to flying because of concocted OH&S concerns and have flying further transferred to other Qantas Group cabin crew, you could promise that no one will be allowed to go into open time if it conflicts with MBT, you could say NO to QF on a whole range of issues and have the Company use the new laws against L/H crew.

What a wonderful platform that would be...... and if you were hypothetically successful.... L/H crew would all lose their jobs.

So I suggest you do run next time around in the FAAA elections and see how you fare with the mainstream of cabin crew who would laugh at you and your impractical and ridiculous statements and ideas.
Guardian1 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2006, 02:37
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Thumbs down no guts

guardian1 misses a myrid of points when it comes to fatigue management. europa, the americas, and most asian nations have flight duty limitation for cabin crew regulated by their respective civil aviation bodies. this is to protect the well being fo cabin crew from unrealistic tours of duties.
as far as ex union officials have told me the current faaa stooges have no relationship with casa, nor have the continued to work with casa on issues related to cabin crew issues with casa. this also includes fatigue management. to wait for reports to come in from those horrendues trips, syd,adl,drw,sin return (as been mentioned on many occassions in this forum), the three s's can wait for a long time. crew have realised they cant rely on the current faaa crop to do anthing . my first advise is to actually go out and talk to crews who do these sectors. that would mean to do what you actually have been elected for .good forbid, i am too busy picking a trip from open time, more important. my second advise is you dont need any reports on those issues you just have to have a look at the sectors and if you really put it in the fatigue modelling computer program it would tell you those trips are unsuitable . finally when does the oh committee get of its a***e and do something about it. it states in the oh act that fatigue is a recognised workplace hazard . wake up guys and do what you have been elected for, yeap wouldn't that be a nice change
mrpaxing is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2006, 03:32
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Guardian
Why bother contacting the FAAA about anything!
If you don't agree with their stance then they don't listen.
you state that not one person has contacted the faaa about the missing FAAA official.
Well there are quite a few people going on about it here.
Typical abuse from your threads as usual!
If you don't agree with Herr Ghardiah then you have nothing of value to say!
Hawk eye I agree 100% with what you say.
Bad Ad nauseous you post was unwarranted!
cartexchange is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.