QANTAS CABIN CREW DISCUSSIONS ( IV)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the KIWIS don't operate under our award i don't think that there are ANY limitations to how Qantas decides to work them........
I'm pleased to hear that your collegues fullfilled their LAWFULL OBLIGATION by reporting unfit for duty due to their lack of rest/fatigue levels.
Wouldn't want them breaking the law now would we???
I'm pleased to hear that your collegues fullfilled their LAWFULL OBLIGATION by reporting unfit for duty due to their lack of rest/fatigue levels.
Wouldn't want them breaking the law now would we???
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For pilots the minimum rest between disruptions is generally 12 hours if there is a 3 or 4 man crew (which covers all LA flying). The minimum rest becomes more than 12 hours when the previous duty was planned greater than 16 hours.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBA 7 CERTIFICATION
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION (AIRC) APPEAL
As previously advised, on May 10 2006, Commissioner Raffaelli of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, certified your EBA 7 (FAAA Newsletter QF17-06). The Commissioner’s decision followed hearings on whether certain provisions (rostering) contained within your agreement were discriminatory to the extent that the agreement should not be certified.
As members would also be aware, post certification, a number of initiatives have been implemented including your wage increase back paid to 1 July 2005.
Unfortunately the Association has recently been notified that an appeal has been lodged challenging the decision of the Commissioner. The appeal to the AIRC has been filed by those representing the two flight attendants who originally intervened to stop the certification process.
Your Association is extremely disappointed that the matter is not concluded and there will once again be uncertainty regarding the status of the certification in particular the provisions dealing with rostering. However, as previously advised, your Association does not believe that the provisions discriminate illegally and we will take whatever steps are necessary to argue that the appeal should be rejected.
What happens now?
Notwithstanding the appeal, the Association and the Company are agreed that any new EBA 7 initiatives should still be progressively implemented.
The Association understands that members will be concerned with the uncertainty over this appeal in particular around their rostering arrangements. There is also considerable debate amongst the membership over the matter as to what’s really involved in the challenge. The AIRC was not and is not being asked to arbitrate on changes to the preferential bidding system. The challenge is mainly a technical and legal argument that the rostering provisions discriminate illegally on the grounds of gender (women) and family responsibilities.
Therefore, if the appeal is successful, no one should under estimate the potential consequences and impact on the allocation of work.
No date has been set for the appeal at this stage and members will be kept informed of any developments on this critically important matter.
Written and authorised by John Playford, Manager Industrial Relations and Darryl Watkins, Divisional Secretary.
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION (AIRC) APPEAL
As previously advised, on May 10 2006, Commissioner Raffaelli of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, certified your EBA 7 (FAAA Newsletter QF17-06). The Commissioner’s decision followed hearings on whether certain provisions (rostering) contained within your agreement were discriminatory to the extent that the agreement should not be certified.
As members would also be aware, post certification, a number of initiatives have been implemented including your wage increase back paid to 1 July 2005.
Unfortunately the Association has recently been notified that an appeal has been lodged challenging the decision of the Commissioner. The appeal to the AIRC has been filed by those representing the two flight attendants who originally intervened to stop the certification process.
Your Association is extremely disappointed that the matter is not concluded and there will once again be uncertainty regarding the status of the certification in particular the provisions dealing with rostering. However, as previously advised, your Association does not believe that the provisions discriminate illegally and we will take whatever steps are necessary to argue that the appeal should be rejected.
What happens now?
Notwithstanding the appeal, the Association and the Company are agreed that any new EBA 7 initiatives should still be progressively implemented.
The Association understands that members will be concerned with the uncertainty over this appeal in particular around their rostering arrangements. There is also considerable debate amongst the membership over the matter as to what’s really involved in the challenge. The AIRC was not and is not being asked to arbitrate on changes to the preferential bidding system. The challenge is mainly a technical and legal argument that the rostering provisions discriminate illegally on the grounds of gender (women) and family responsibilities.
Therefore, if the appeal is successful, no one should under estimate the potential consequences and impact on the allocation of work.
No date has been set for the appeal at this stage and members will be kept informed of any developments on this critically important matter.
Written and authorised by John Playford, Manager Industrial Relations and Darryl Watkins, Divisional Secretary.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 July 2006 ID40-06
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
AGREEMENT REACHED OVER BONAVENTURE HOTEL AND LAX ALLOWANCES
Cabin crew will be aware that the FAAA has been in dispute with Qantas over safety related concerns associated with the Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles. The FAAA and AIPA (Australian and International Pilots Association) have also been in dispute over the meal allowance rate for Los Angeles.
We are pleased to report that Qantas and the FAAA, with the assistance of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) have reached a negotiated “package” agreement that resolves both disputes.
BONAVENTURE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
The primary reason why the FAAA listed a dispute in the AIRC was because we were receiving reports from members, particularly from women, about personal safety concerns. There were also several incidents which the FAAA viewed as serious.
We listed the dispute in the AIRC, but as members would be aware from previous newsletters, the AIRC was not prepared to issue an order requiring Qantas to move crew from this hotel. Rather, the AIRC requested that a four month review period occur and that the situation regarding safety be monitored.
In the intervening period, the level of adverse communication from crew to the FAAA about the hotel has fallen off dramatically.
AGREEMENT
1) Qantas will facilitate and support an inspection process of crew hotels by the FAAA.
2) Qantas will commit to take all reasonable steps to ensure that rooms will be allocated to cabin crew in a priority and manner that will mitigate the impact of noise in cabin crew rooms.
3) In recognition of issues of safety in respect of the surrounding area, a free shuttle bus service of up to 16 return trips per week to Pasadena will be introduced by Qantas. Qantas long haul cabin crew on slip in LA will have priority on-load for the shuttle service. The buses will only be available to Qantas employees due to insurance implications.
LA MEAL ALLOWANCE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
Each year a review is conducted of meal allowances paid in slip ports. The FAAA, AIPA and Qantas jointly undertake this review. The review that commenced in October 2005 resulted in disagreement over several ports but in particular the major disagreement was over LA.
The FAAA subsequently listed a dispute about this issue in the AIRC. The AIRC held a conference between the parties and asked that further discussions occur between the parties in an attempt to resolve the issue. The FAAA advised Qantas it wanted a package approach to both the Bonaventure hotel issue and the LAX allowance issue.
AGREEMENT
1) The LA allowance will be increased from US$101.40 per day to US$108 per day, an almost 7% increase.
2) There will be a retrospective adjustment to LA meal allowances from 1 November 2005. Crew who have done LA patterns will receive a retrospective increase to patterns flown since 1 November 2005.
3) For the annual review later this year, the new US$108 rate will be adjusted in line with the inflation figure for the LA- Riverside-Orange County Food Away From Home index.
CONCLUSION
All of you would be aware of the difficult circumstances that are confronting us, both in general industrial terms arising from the new industrial laws and specifically, from the pressure emanating from the fuel price issue, which in turn is driving Qantas to identify savings on a broad scale
In view of the current environment, the FAAA is happy with the negotiated outcome on both issues, particularly in the context that we find ourselves in as Long Haul cabin crew.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
AGREEMENT REACHED OVER BONAVENTURE HOTEL AND LAX ALLOWANCES
Cabin crew will be aware that the FAAA has been in dispute with Qantas over safety related concerns associated with the Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles. The FAAA and AIPA (Australian and International Pilots Association) have also been in dispute over the meal allowance rate for Los Angeles.
We are pleased to report that Qantas and the FAAA, with the assistance of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) have reached a negotiated “package” agreement that resolves both disputes.
BONAVENTURE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
The primary reason why the FAAA listed a dispute in the AIRC was because we were receiving reports from members, particularly from women, about personal safety concerns. There were also several incidents which the FAAA viewed as serious.
We listed the dispute in the AIRC, but as members would be aware from previous newsletters, the AIRC was not prepared to issue an order requiring Qantas to move crew from this hotel. Rather, the AIRC requested that a four month review period occur and that the situation regarding safety be monitored.
In the intervening period, the level of adverse communication from crew to the FAAA about the hotel has fallen off dramatically.
AGREEMENT
1) Qantas will facilitate and support an inspection process of crew hotels by the FAAA.
2) Qantas will commit to take all reasonable steps to ensure that rooms will be allocated to cabin crew in a priority and manner that will mitigate the impact of noise in cabin crew rooms.
3) In recognition of issues of safety in respect of the surrounding area, a free shuttle bus service of up to 16 return trips per week to Pasadena will be introduced by Qantas. Qantas long haul cabin crew on slip in LA will have priority on-load for the shuttle service. The buses will only be available to Qantas employees due to insurance implications.
LA MEAL ALLOWANCE ISSUE
BACKGROUND
Each year a review is conducted of meal allowances paid in slip ports. The FAAA, AIPA and Qantas jointly undertake this review. The review that commenced in October 2005 resulted in disagreement over several ports but in particular the major disagreement was over LA.
The FAAA subsequently listed a dispute about this issue in the AIRC. The AIRC held a conference between the parties and asked that further discussions occur between the parties in an attempt to resolve the issue. The FAAA advised Qantas it wanted a package approach to both the Bonaventure hotel issue and the LAX allowance issue.
AGREEMENT
1) The LA allowance will be increased from US$101.40 per day to US$108 per day, an almost 7% increase.
2) There will be a retrospective adjustment to LA meal allowances from 1 November 2005. Crew who have done LA patterns will receive a retrospective increase to patterns flown since 1 November 2005.
3) For the annual review later this year, the new US$108 rate will be adjusted in line with the inflation figure for the LA- Riverside-Orange County Food Away From Home index.
CONCLUSION
All of you would be aware of the difficult circumstances that are confronting us, both in general industrial terms arising from the new industrial laws and specifically, from the pressure emanating from the fuel price issue, which in turn is driving Qantas to identify savings on a broad scale
In view of the current environment, the FAAA is happy with the negotiated outcome on both issues, particularly in the context that we find ourselves in as Long Haul cabin crew.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: QLD
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, an already long standing agreed upon process of hotel inspections and a shopping shuttle bus fixes the safety/security concerns that the FAAA protested about for so long. 
Cabin crew - are you happy with this ????
Cabin crew - are you happy with this ????
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25th July 2006
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CLAUSE 11 OUTRAGES - Dispute notified by FAAA in the Commission
Qantas Long Haul Cabin Crew would well be aware that the FAAA has written on a number of occasions about Disciplinary proceedings involving crew. What we haven’t effectively conveyed to you is our utter frustration in dealing with a level of sheer incompetence with “a few” in cabin crew management.
We have attempted to find sensible solutions to the performance management of cabin crew and for the most part it works fine and most in cabin crew management strike the right balance between affording procedural fairness to the crew member and considering whether an investigation should be handled via an informal discussion rather than a formal process
Last night we handled an emergency call from a member of over 20 years advising that a CCTM had stood him down and was holding him out of service as a result of allegations of serious misconduct. The letter sent to the member contains the allegation that “you were seen putting a UNICEF envelope in your back pocket”. Clearly some CCTM’s are not aware that there is no actual back pocket in the Morrissey Uniform.
The member was horrified at the implication of that allegation and immediately offered to meet with the Company the next day to discuss the matter. This request was denied and on that basis the call was terminated.
From the FAAA’s perspective any allegation should be investigated. But we insist that holding someone out of service on the spurious allegations of putting an envelope in his pocket would capture most if not all Cabin Crew in the same boat at some stage. To suggest that the act of putting an envelop in a pocket or apron pocket is somehow justification for allegations of theft and standing a person down and holding them out of service will not be tolerated by the FAAA.
To that end we have sought legal advice and intend to notify an immediate dispute to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the total mismanagement of this Clause 11 process by Cabin Crew Management.
We have no desire to damage Qantas, its public image or the image of our members. The suggestion that a Flight Attendant would potentially steal UNICEF funds is anathema to this organisation and every flight attendant who has supported it willingly over many years.
Given the ease with which a spurious allegation can be made we suggest that flight attendants may wish to modify their approach to the UNICEF collection. If it becomes necessary for the issue to be dealt with by further advice to flight attendants we will not hesitate to do so.
The crew member concerned is totally devastated by the process and the allegation. What we find appalling is that it was made by another flight attendant. Further we say the whole matter could have been resolved on the aircraft.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division
Copyright © 2006 FAAA
:: home ::newsheets :: must-knows :: report forms :: planeFAAActs :: links :: software :: contacts :: login
Site produced by Sconic Consulting
Attention All Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
CLAUSE 11 OUTRAGES - Dispute notified by FAAA in the Commission
Qantas Long Haul Cabin Crew would well be aware that the FAAA has written on a number of occasions about Disciplinary proceedings involving crew. What we haven’t effectively conveyed to you is our utter frustration in dealing with a level of sheer incompetence with “a few” in cabin crew management.
We have attempted to find sensible solutions to the performance management of cabin crew and for the most part it works fine and most in cabin crew management strike the right balance between affording procedural fairness to the crew member and considering whether an investigation should be handled via an informal discussion rather than a formal process
Last night we handled an emergency call from a member of over 20 years advising that a CCTM had stood him down and was holding him out of service as a result of allegations of serious misconduct. The letter sent to the member contains the allegation that “you were seen putting a UNICEF envelope in your back pocket”. Clearly some CCTM’s are not aware that there is no actual back pocket in the Morrissey Uniform.
The member was horrified at the implication of that allegation and immediately offered to meet with the Company the next day to discuss the matter. This request was denied and on that basis the call was terminated.
From the FAAA’s perspective any allegation should be investigated. But we insist that holding someone out of service on the spurious allegations of putting an envelope in his pocket would capture most if not all Cabin Crew in the same boat at some stage. To suggest that the act of putting an envelop in a pocket or apron pocket is somehow justification for allegations of theft and standing a person down and holding them out of service will not be tolerated by the FAAA.
To that end we have sought legal advice and intend to notify an immediate dispute to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the total mismanagement of this Clause 11 process by Cabin Crew Management.
We have no desire to damage Qantas, its public image or the image of our members. The suggestion that a Flight Attendant would potentially steal UNICEF funds is anathema to this organisation and every flight attendant who has supported it willingly over many years.
Given the ease with which a spurious allegation can be made we suggest that flight attendants may wish to modify their approach to the UNICEF collection. If it becomes necessary for the issue to be dealt with by further advice to flight attendants we will not hesitate to do so.
The crew member concerned is totally devastated by the process and the allegation. What we find appalling is that it was made by another flight attendant. Further we say the whole matter could have been resolved on the aircraft.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division
Copyright © 2006 FAAA
:: home ::newsheets :: must-knows :: report forms :: planeFAAActs :: links :: software :: contacts :: login
Site produced by Sconic Consulting
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eight (8) required proofs to sustain an offence of larceny/theft.....
1. The defendant.. (i.e. the person, properly identified, who has been accused)
2. ...took... (i.e. clutched, grabbed, took hold of, etc)
3. ...and carried away... (i.e. 'asportation' - any discernable movement. Taking something with the intent to steal it, then putting it back immediately, is STILL stealing)
4. ...property... (tangible goods or items. e.g. 'Land' is not 'property' that can be stolen)
5. ...of another..(an identifiable owner. e.g. You can't be convicted of stealing abandoned property like a car. The owner may be a custodian e.g. Qantas, Australia Post, dry cleaner, etc)
6. ...without their permission...
7. ...without claim of right... (e.g. you cannot steal jointly-owned property or something that is proven to be yours or permitted to be in your possession); and
this is the kicker !....
8. ...with felonious intent.
ALL EIGHT PROOFS MUST BE MET. ALL OF THEM. Good luck proving numbers 6, 7 and 8 !!!!!!! This has a VERY profitable lawsuit written all over it !!! I hope he sues the pants off them.
1. The defendant.. (i.e. the person, properly identified, who has been accused)
2. ...took... (i.e. clutched, grabbed, took hold of, etc)
3. ...and carried away... (i.e. 'asportation' - any discernable movement. Taking something with the intent to steal it, then putting it back immediately, is STILL stealing)
4. ...property... (tangible goods or items. e.g. 'Land' is not 'property' that can be stolen)
5. ...of another..(an identifiable owner. e.g. You can't be convicted of stealing abandoned property like a car. The owner may be a custodian e.g. Qantas, Australia Post, dry cleaner, etc)
6. ...without their permission...
7. ...without claim of right... (e.g. you cannot steal jointly-owned property or something that is proven to be yours or permitted to be in your possession); and
this is the kicker !....
8. ...with felonious intent.
ALL EIGHT PROOFS MUST BE MET. ALL OF THEM. Good luck proving numbers 6, 7 and 8 !!!!!!! This has a VERY profitable lawsuit written all over it !!! I hope he sues the pants off them.
Last edited by captaindejavu; 25th Jul 2006 at 07:46.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came accross the following forum which may contain a bit of information for you lot:
http://www.cabincrew.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=10
There is a lot of info regarding everything relating to cabin crew in Australia, but interestingly enough there is no mention of Qantas it seems among the topics.
Did you lot manage to get banned from there as well?
http://www.cabincrew.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=10
There is a lot of info regarding everything relating to cabin crew in Australia, but interestingly enough there is no mention of Qantas it seems among the topics.
Did you lot manage to get banned from there as well?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unicef
I cant tell you how many times a passenger has handed me a unicef envelope during the flight or how many times I have put them in my pocket to be put in the UNICEF bag when I get back to the workstation.
Just another example of QF gestapo like tactics.
Engagement anyone..........?
Just another example of QF gestapo like tactics.
Engagement anyone..........?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funbags,
Not only do I find it annoying that the faaa have got the company to agree to a procedure that they had already agreed to (now that is a huge win) as you correctly pointed out but that the faaa did not ask the membership if they were happy with the offer of a shopping bus instead of moving to another hotel...
This could be a new point of law..
If one party in a dispute agrees to a solution in that an existing agreement that was previously used and agreed to is accepted to resolve the said dispute ...is that called an excursion in redundancy or a superfluous exercise in law or maybe a redundant superfluous rhetorical snow job.
So because the area around the hotel is considered unsafe the faaa get the company to put a shopping bus on!!! So that we can walk around an area that the company moved us away from ....This is right out of a comedy sketch.....The boys in Monty Python would love this one.
By putting the bus on the company is admitting that the shopping area around the hotel is not safe...or they would not have made this offer..
How many crew are there in LA at any one time?
If you miss out on the bus because it is full what happens then ?
This is another huge win for cabin crew and the faaa and Darth must be shaking in his boots with the thought of another confrontation with the faaa...no wonder they gave in to the allowance dispute.
Now it looks like the company under the disguise of 2 S/H cabin crew are having another go at the seniority system...They would love to say "sorry crew but we have to go to an allocated rostering sytem because the commission is making us"
Is it too late to apply for VR??????
Not only do I find it annoying that the faaa have got the company to agree to a procedure that they had already agreed to (now that is a huge win) as you correctly pointed out but that the faaa did not ask the membership if they were happy with the offer of a shopping bus instead of moving to another hotel...
This could be a new point of law..
If one party in a dispute agrees to a solution in that an existing agreement that was previously used and agreed to is accepted to resolve the said dispute ...is that called an excursion in redundancy or a superfluous exercise in law or maybe a redundant superfluous rhetorical snow job.
So because the area around the hotel is considered unsafe the faaa get the company to put a shopping bus on!!! So that we can walk around an area that the company moved us away from ....This is right out of a comedy sketch.....The boys in Monty Python would love this one.
By putting the bus on the company is admitting that the shopping area around the hotel is not safe...or they would not have made this offer..
How many crew are there in LA at any one time?
If you miss out on the bus because it is full what happens then ?
This is another huge win for cabin crew and the faaa and Darth must be shaking in his boots with the thought of another confrontation with the faaa...no wonder they gave in to the allowance dispute.
Now it looks like the company under the disguise of 2 S/H cabin crew are having another go at the seniority system...They would love to say "sorry crew but we have to go to an allocated rostering sytem because the commission is making us"
Is it too late to apply for VR??????
Last edited by lowerlobe; 25th Jul 2006 at 18:25.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowerlobe,
with regards to your post i can assure in this occasion that its not the company challenging the seniority issue, it actually is 2 SH crew (one is a current CSM and the other an ex CSM now FA).
I can even give you their names - they are in the Sydney base. Its no secret in the base although the AIRC have kept their names out of the transcripts.
with regards to your post i can assure in this occasion that its not the company challenging the seniority issue, it actually is 2 SH crew (one is a current CSM and the other an ex CSM now FA).
I can even give you their names - they are in the Sydney base. Its no secret in the base although the AIRC have kept their names out of the transcripts.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney S/H,
Thanks and I know who you mean as well but I am just wondering if anyone is motivating them or helping them in some way.
You can imagine how much the company would like to see the end of the seniority system.After the VR anyone with more than 10 years would leave because they would have absolutely no say in what their rosters turn out to be.
The company might offer something like a weighted system so you might be able to pick one trip per roster but basically it would be just like the old days but without a 75% stand down and that alone would take a lot of fun out of the job.
Thanks and I know who you mean as well but I am just wondering if anyone is motivating them or helping them in some way.
You can imagine how much the company would like to see the end of the seniority system.After the VR anyone with more than 10 years would leave because they would have absolutely no say in what their rosters turn out to be.
The company might offer something like a weighted system so you might be able to pick one trip per roster but basically it would be just like the old days but without a 75% stand down and that alone would take a lot of fun out of the job.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a little sidestep
the australian newspaper
BA to tighten baggage rules
Ginny McGrath
July 20, 2006
PAYING pound stg. 120 ($295) to take a second suitcase to Australia sounds steep, but you could be better off under British Airways' new strict baggage policy.
The airline has simplified its baggage policy by limiting economy class passengers to checking in a single bag weighing no more than 23kg. The new strict weight limit and flat rate fee to carry extra bags will leave domestic passengers worse off but will benefit long-haul passengers who want to travel with a lot of luggage.
For passengers travelling after October 11, the airline will no longer check in any bag that weighs more than 23kg. Previously passengers on domestic flights could take bags of up to 32kg, but now passengers in any class, on any flight, must take items out of their luggage if it weighs over 23kg.
For business and first class passengers this is less of an issue because they can check in two pieces of luggage weighing up to 23kg - both on short-haul and long-haul flights.
If items have to be removed from a checked piece of luggage, they can be transferred to hand luggage, which will from July 5 be in line with the baggage policy of EasyJet, allowing passengers to carry bags of unlimited weight on to the aircraft (that means 23 kg). The only criteria is that a passenger can lift the bag into the overhead locker, and that the bag will fit in the locker, so it needs to be within the dimensions, 56x45x25cm. In addition to this bag a laptop-sized bag or handbag can also be taken.
The limit is the same for all passengers, regardless of the class they travel in.
In addition to the new policies above, passengers can continue to check in one piece of sporting equipment free of charge, such as golf clubs or skis, and from October 11 families travelling with infants can carry 23kg for each infant (up from the current 10kg) plus a pushchair and a second piece of carry-on luggage.
The Times
after checking BA's website the new policy will be phased in from july. wonder how QF is going to respond with its 7kg cabin a piece luggage policy.
can anyone tell me the weight limits of overhead lockers on 747/777/333?
this should make boarding more interesting on all codeshare flights
BA to tighten baggage rules
Ginny McGrath
July 20, 2006
PAYING pound stg. 120 ($295) to take a second suitcase to Australia sounds steep, but you could be better off under British Airways' new strict baggage policy.
The airline has simplified its baggage policy by limiting economy class passengers to checking in a single bag weighing no more than 23kg. The new strict weight limit and flat rate fee to carry extra bags will leave domestic passengers worse off but will benefit long-haul passengers who want to travel with a lot of luggage.
For passengers travelling after October 11, the airline will no longer check in any bag that weighs more than 23kg. Previously passengers on domestic flights could take bags of up to 32kg, but now passengers in any class, on any flight, must take items out of their luggage if it weighs over 23kg.
For business and first class passengers this is less of an issue because they can check in two pieces of luggage weighing up to 23kg - both on short-haul and long-haul flights.
If items have to be removed from a checked piece of luggage, they can be transferred to hand luggage, which will from July 5 be in line with the baggage policy of EasyJet, allowing passengers to carry bags of unlimited weight on to the aircraft (that means 23 kg). The only criteria is that a passenger can lift the bag into the overhead locker, and that the bag will fit in the locker, so it needs to be within the dimensions, 56x45x25cm. In addition to this bag a laptop-sized bag or handbag can also be taken.
The limit is the same for all passengers, regardless of the class they travel in.
In addition to the new policies above, passengers can continue to check in one piece of sporting equipment free of charge, such as golf clubs or skis, and from October 11 families travelling with infants can carry 23kg for each infant (up from the current 10kg) plus a pushchair and a second piece of carry-on luggage.
The Times
after checking BA's website the new policy will be phased in from july. wonder how QF is going to respond with its 7kg cabin a piece luggage policy.
can anyone tell me the weight limits of overhead lockers on 747/777/333?
this should make boarding more interesting on all codeshare flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the info Speedbird.
you would think that fat boy slim would have learned his lesson with the "Nick" affair, but looks like it has only made him more determined to persecute crews.
I wonder who the poor soul was?
But most of all I wonder what the real story is!
you would think that fat boy slim would have learned his lesson with the "Nick" affair, but looks like it has only made him more determined to persecute crews.
I wonder who the poor soul was?
But most of all I wonder what the real story is!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Noosa
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR.
Again , the Visitors have stooped to new depths. This latest outrage is an utter disgrace.
As has been discussed, we ALL have walked off an aircraft with Unicef envelopes in our pockets.............so f----'n what!!!!!
In case those buffoons haven't noticed we have almost 400 pax on a flight, and guess what we often work thru the night and are fatigued and guess what sometimes INADVERTENLY we forget to hand in an envelope and guess what ........we put it in the QCC/1 collection box !!!!!
We don't steal off UNICEF ( or any one for that manner)
TAKE A RUNNING JUMP YOU PEA BRAINS (aka Visitors)
Again the "stereotype Flight Attendant" role is belittled by people who have NO idea what we do.
Lets all stand in the lobby of QCC/1 and see how mnay of them walk out of the building with a Qantas issued pen, booklet or "tools of their trade".
Pleeeze Mr Brown if you are looking for Managers to chop..........look no further than QCC/1. Their use by date has expired , its back to Woolies to pack shelves for you all.
Good Riddance
As has been discussed, we ALL have walked off an aircraft with Unicef envelopes in our pockets.............so f----'n what!!!!!
In case those buffoons haven't noticed we have almost 400 pax on a flight, and guess what we often work thru the night and are fatigued and guess what sometimes INADVERTENLY we forget to hand in an envelope and guess what ........we put it in the QCC/1 collection box !!!!!
We don't steal off UNICEF ( or any one for that manner)
TAKE A RUNNING JUMP YOU PEA BRAINS (aka Visitors)
Again the "stereotype Flight Attendant" role is belittled by people who have NO idea what we do.
Lets all stand in the lobby of QCC/1 and see how mnay of them walk out of the building with a Qantas issued pen, booklet or "tools of their trade".
Pleeeze Mr Brown if you are looking for Managers to chop..........look no further than QCC/1. Their use by date has expired , its back to Woolies to pack shelves for you all.
Good Riddance
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leane... re EPS
yes you will expire and its illegal...
they have to put you in a class before your expiry date....dont worry they will get you for them......
they will even take you off a trip to get you in.......
Why dont you call ops and tll them that way you may be able to chose a date.
Best of luck
CArTEX
yes you will expire and its illegal...
they have to put you in a class before your expiry date....dont worry they will get you for them......
they will even take you off a trip to get you in.......
Why dont you call ops and tll them that way you may be able to chose a date.
Best of luck
CArTEX
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leane
I got taken off EP's once (they were short of CSM's - shocking!) and then i didnt get them rescheduled that month. Low and behold i had holidays the next month so by then i am way out of wack.
The first day of the month i got back - whamo - EP's.
They can definatley extend you into 7months - 8 and your doing it on the 1st of the month.
Study up!
I got taken off EP's once (they were short of CSM's - shocking!) and then i didnt get them rescheduled that month. Low and behold i had holidays the next month so by then i am way out of wack.
The first day of the month i got back - whamo - EP's.
They can definatley extend you into 7months - 8 and your doing it on the 1st of the month.
Study up!