QANTAS - Australia
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am afraid
i have to cite with LL on this one.
S/H union started the MAM casuals, VB contracts, Impulse turned J*etc. There weren,t many options available to negotiate the same conditions for AO,BKK base (as we used to say then at union meetings "your are setting a precedent"). reminder that the AKL base was not a legal option for the faaa, the london base got up thanks to the s/h union president. recently the faaa domestic gave dispensation to "extend" the 3 hour time zone to bombay, which takes to divisional flying agreement to the max. as you guys in s/h find out now longhaul flying is a little different with jetlag, more night sectors,etc.i hear many of my domestic mates now "whinge" about the extra hours, longer trips,etc.
we are at a point where QF has the advantage at the moment.
not all is lost, its a matter of getting organised.
the next step:
1) research QF management wage and bonuses in the last 10 years since privatisation.
2) compare them to other international airlines wages & conditions
3) communicate it to the public through various channels in the lead up to the election.
the QF unions have to keep reminding the public that "Il Duce" alone went from 1.8 million to 3.2 million in the last fin year.
S/H union started the MAM casuals, VB contracts, Impulse turned J*etc. There weren,t many options available to negotiate the same conditions for AO,BKK base (as we used to say then at union meetings "your are setting a precedent"). reminder that the AKL base was not a legal option for the faaa, the london base got up thanks to the s/h union president. recently the faaa domestic gave dispensation to "extend" the 3 hour time zone to bombay, which takes to divisional flying agreement to the max. as you guys in s/h find out now longhaul flying is a little different with jetlag, more night sectors,etc.i hear many of my domestic mates now "whinge" about the extra hours, longer trips,etc.
we are at a point where QF has the advantage at the moment.
not all is lost, its a matter of getting organised.the next step:
1) research QF management wage and bonuses in the last 10 years since privatisation.
2) compare them to other international airlines wages & conditions
3) communicate it to the public through various channels in the lead up to the election.
the QF unions have to keep reminding the public that "Il Duce" alone went from 1.8 million to 3.2 million in the last fin year.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LHR base got up thanks to the SH union president??? wow. 1 person. Thats some power she must have had.
So your union must be very weak if a union member from a different division can make decisions on your behalf!
As far as your SH mates complaining that they dont like the longer flying and whinging then why are they doing those flights? ALL regionals are still quite senior - yes, even the BOM trips. People on international flights are there because they want to be.
And you say about longer hours? We are still only working 123hrs/mth.
So your union must be very weak if a union member from a different division can make decisions on your behalf!
As far as your SH mates complaining that they dont like the longer flying and whinging then why are they doing those flights? ALL regionals are still quite senior - yes, even the BOM trips. People on international flights are there because they want to be.
And you say about longer hours? We are still only working 123hrs/mth.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is 248 hours per 2 month period which is the length of the Longhaul roster.
What is our Longhaul divisor guys????
200 and under if I'm not to be mistaken???
Lets not even mention the 'allowances" issues of which ALL other overseas bases get!!
And STILL you keep congratulating yourself????
Very clever syd/shorthaul, very clever...........
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my dear s/h
it appears you are
very junior
dont understand (yet) how the politics work in qf
dont understand how politics (yet) work between the unions
what incentives s/h got promised by qf to "bend over"
what trips mam casuals are getting called out for (according to mam casuals).
working hours? speedy well said.
now lets move on
very junior
dont understand (yet) how the politics work in qf
dont understand how politics (yet) work between the unions
what incentives s/h got promised by qf to "bend over"
what trips mam casuals are getting called out for (according to mam casuals).
working hours? speedy well said.
now lets move on
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok... you mentioned we are working "extra hours".
We are NOT working "extra hours".
We have ALWAYS worked 123hrs.
End of story.
NOW...we can move on.
p.s. QCC2... i am not very junior thanks.
We are NOT working "extra hours".
We have ALWAYS worked 123hrs.
End of story.
NOW...we can move on.
p.s. QCC2... i am not very junior thanks.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification
Qantas is able to employ whomever it chooses overseas and can not be prevented from doing so by Australian Unions.
The regional flying agreement did not cover the Airbus because Qantas chose not to include it..nor could it be compelled to do so.
The domestic union agreed to and convinced domestic crew to agree to the last domestic EBA...which in effect gives Qantas Carte Blanche to send then anywhere on vitually any a/c except a jumbo.
They are able to do this with a lesser pay structure,no allowances paid in local currency and up to 246 hrs per bid period.
123 hrs pe rmonth is okay in the same or close time zone.
The same can not be said for back of the clock flying,reduced standown time and major circadian time changes...all agreed to by domestic flight attendants and their representatives.
Longhaul have been complicit in their own demise by trusting in the integrity and intelligence of their domestic cousins...a big mistake.
To be smug about doing elses job for less money and reduced conditions beggars belief.
Any way whats done is done.As time goes on and QF management begins to take advantage of the last domestic EBA sydney s/h will slowly realise how they have been done over.
Loss of family friendly flying and the domination of domestic by casuals is just the beginning
The regional flying agreement did not cover the Airbus because Qantas chose not to include it..nor could it be compelled to do so.
The domestic union agreed to and convinced domestic crew to agree to the last domestic EBA...which in effect gives Qantas Carte Blanche to send then anywhere on vitually any a/c except a jumbo.
They are able to do this with a lesser pay structure,no allowances paid in local currency and up to 246 hrs per bid period.
123 hrs pe rmonth is okay in the same or close time zone.
The same can not be said for back of the clock flying,reduced standown time and major circadian time changes...all agreed to by domestic flight attendants and their representatives.
Longhaul have been complicit in their own demise by trusting in the integrity and intelligence of their domestic cousins...a big mistake.
To be smug about doing elses job for less money and reduced conditions beggars belief.
Any way whats done is done.As time goes on and QF management begins to take advantage of the last domestic EBA sydney s/h will slowly realise how they have been done over.
Loss of family friendly flying and the domination of domestic by casuals is just the beginning
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'Mon guys ,take a breather and look at who the real enemy is as far as our jobs go.
we already have some here who are emailing tightslot complaining about reponses to their posts and to me that is about as un Australian as what our employer is doing.
If we don't work together to stop Darth we will all be vitually paying to go to work...
I have found an exert from an article in the SMH and it is very interesting...
Dixon would have been reasonably satisfied with the $480 million profit Qantas reported, although that profit included $104 million of damages from Airbus for delayed delivery of new planes. Qantas retained its position as one of the handful of solidly profitable traditional carriers in the world.
He would however be concerned about the contrast between Virgin Blue's performance and that of his own group, and the unflattering comparisons between Jetstar and Virgin Blue. Jetstar, excluding $15 million of one-off costs for launching its Trans-Tasman and international services, had an $11 million decline in pre-tax earnings to $25 million. Virgin Blues's pre-tax profits rose 16% to $123 million.
Looked at more closely Virgin Blue generated more revenue per passenger ($133 versus $122) at an almost identical cost per passenger ($120) and therefore made more profit per passenger ($12.60 against $1.80). It also had higher load factors (77% against 74%). Where Jetstar's yields, margins and profits fell, Virgin Blue's rose.
Part of the explanation for the difference in experiences is that, just as Virgin Blue's earnings in earlier times were depressed by the amount of additional capacity it was adding during the 'land grab' period of its brief history that occurred ahead of the Jetstar launch, Jetstar has also been ramping up capacity at a cost to its efficiency and its profitability.
It is evident, however, that Virgin Blue is extracting more revenue from its capacity than either of the domestic Qantas brands. Its revenue per available seat kilometre rose 4.5% against Qantas's domestic mainline operations (up 2.6%) and Jetstar (down 5.1%).
Moreover, Virgin Blue's return on assets, at 16.3%, is nearly double that of the Qantas goup. Given that Virgin Blue, which hasn't hedged its fuel costs, had to cope with a 35% rise in fuel costs, its performance relative to the other airlines in the region is remarkable.
For Dixon, Virgin Blue's ability to cope with the difficult environment is an early warning signal that the original strategy that led to Jetstar's creation may have forced Virgin Blue to evolve in a way that represents an even more direct, albeit long term, threat to Qantas's core franchise.
Jetstar was essentially a pincer strategy. Qantas hoped that by using its own value based airline to attack the high-volume, low margin core of Virgin Blue, to compete on the battleground of Qantas's choosing, and keep it away from the higher margin market segments.
we already have some here who are emailing tightslot complaining about reponses to their posts and to me that is about as un Australian as what our employer is doing.
If we don't work together to stop Darth we will all be vitually paying to go to work...
I have found an exert from an article in the SMH and it is very interesting...
Dixon would have been reasonably satisfied with the $480 million profit Qantas reported, although that profit included $104 million of damages from Airbus for delayed delivery of new planes. Qantas retained its position as one of the handful of solidly profitable traditional carriers in the world.
He would however be concerned about the contrast between Virgin Blue's performance and that of his own group, and the unflattering comparisons between Jetstar and Virgin Blue. Jetstar, excluding $15 million of one-off costs for launching its Trans-Tasman and international services, had an $11 million decline in pre-tax earnings to $25 million. Virgin Blues's pre-tax profits rose 16% to $123 million.
Looked at more closely Virgin Blue generated more revenue per passenger ($133 versus $122) at an almost identical cost per passenger ($120) and therefore made more profit per passenger ($12.60 against $1.80). It also had higher load factors (77% against 74%). Where Jetstar's yields, margins and profits fell, Virgin Blue's rose.
Part of the explanation for the difference in experiences is that, just as Virgin Blue's earnings in earlier times were depressed by the amount of additional capacity it was adding during the 'land grab' period of its brief history that occurred ahead of the Jetstar launch, Jetstar has also been ramping up capacity at a cost to its efficiency and its profitability.
It is evident, however, that Virgin Blue is extracting more revenue from its capacity than either of the domestic Qantas brands. Its revenue per available seat kilometre rose 4.5% against Qantas's domestic mainline operations (up 2.6%) and Jetstar (down 5.1%).
Moreover, Virgin Blue's return on assets, at 16.3%, is nearly double that of the Qantas goup. Given that Virgin Blue, which hasn't hedged its fuel costs, had to cope with a 35% rise in fuel costs, its performance relative to the other airlines in the region is remarkable.
For Dixon, Virgin Blue's ability to cope with the difficult environment is an early warning signal that the original strategy that led to Jetstar's creation may have forced Virgin Blue to evolve in a way that represents an even more direct, albeit long term, threat to Qantas's core franchise.
Jetstar was essentially a pincer strategy. Qantas hoped that by using its own value based airline to attack the high-volume, low margin core of Virgin Blue, to compete on the battleground of Qantas's choosing, and keep it away from the higher margin market segments.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conciliation
Conciliation with domestics was tried over 10 years ago with disastrous results.
A totally dogmatic tunnel visioned approach was their understanding of a united FA group...as long as they were in charge things would be fine.
The marriage of the two groups lasted about 3 years.
They had never dealt with a mob like Qantas and did not have the sophisitication nor understanding to do so.
They had their roots in a cosy duopoly.Both Ansett and TAA FAs were united and had pretty much been molly coddled by their employers.An ill founded trust developed between them all.
They believed that their employers would never do the wrong thing.
A mentality that still exists today.Thats why they are easy targets.
Unfortunately we LH CC are victims of their naivete.
Things arent going back to the way they were.
Future generations of crew will wonder how these hard fought for conditions were squandered by these incompetents for absolutely no gain whatsoever
A totally dogmatic tunnel visioned approach was their understanding of a united FA group...as long as they were in charge things would be fine.
The marriage of the two groups lasted about 3 years.
They had never dealt with a mob like Qantas and did not have the sophisitication nor understanding to do so.
They had their roots in a cosy duopoly.Both Ansett and TAA FAs were united and had pretty much been molly coddled by their employers.An ill founded trust developed between them all.
They believed that their employers would never do the wrong thing.
A mentality that still exists today.Thats why they are easy targets.
Unfortunately we LH CC are victims of their naivete.
Things arent going back to the way they were.
Future generations of crew will wonder how these hard fought for conditions were squandered by these incompetents for absolutely no gain whatsoever
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite funny surfside as the majority of the Sydney base is ex-LH. And its also funny that the old TAA girls dont want the regional flying - and hence were the biggest non-supporters of the last EBA.
So according to you, we are unsophisicated and incompetant.
Well maybe you should look closer to home and stop blaming everyone else for your demise. As i mentioned earlier - O/S bases are a big problem for you as is Jetstar International.
Sort that lot out and you may stand a chance.
So according to you, we are unsophisicated and incompetant.
Well maybe you should look closer to home and stop blaming everyone else for your demise. As i mentioned earlier - O/S bases are a big problem for you as is Jetstar International.
Sort that lot out and you may stand a chance.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: crew rest
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
syd sh....
what exactly is your gripe, considering that you were ex long haul, why are your posts always so provocative.
anyway heard a story that a CSM was hauled in along with all the crew after a HNL trip apparently he was dobbed in by some of his crew because they thought his briefing was inappropriate.
Anyone know the story.
Also I have seen the new organization charts how in the hell did Fat boy slim get promoted after all the ballsup.
what exactly is your gripe, considering that you were ex long haul, why are your posts always so provocative.
anyway heard a story that a CSM was hauled in along with all the crew after a HNL trip apparently he was dobbed in by some of his crew because they thought his briefing was inappropriate.
Anyone know the story.
Also I have seen the new organization charts how in the hell did Fat boy slim get promoted after all the ballsup.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff travel benefits
Hello all,
Can someone settle a query here RE: Staff travel benefits for Qantas Cabin/ground crew? I'm asking here as someone here must know!!
Ok - Q: When can you replace a family member on your Staff benefits?
Been given differing details ie :-
- 12 months after they have initially been put on.
- 6 months after they have initially been put on.
-Also, after this initial period expires, can they then be removed/replaced at any time the Qantas staff member requires?
-OR, if they are left on after the initial period and not replaced by someone else, must they then stay on for another 'non-removable' period.
Its confusing!! Help!! (As i am the family member in question..and not sure if I can get off the benefits...cant/too scared to pester my brother!!)
Thanks in advance!!
Marie
Can someone settle a query here RE: Staff travel benefits for Qantas Cabin/ground crew? I'm asking here as someone here must know!!
Ok - Q: When can you replace a family member on your Staff benefits?
Been given differing details ie :-
- 12 months after they have initially been put on.
- 6 months after they have initially been put on.
-Also, after this initial period expires, can they then be removed/replaced at any time the Qantas staff member requires?
-OR, if they are left on after the initial period and not replaced by someone else, must they then stay on for another 'non-removable' period.
Its confusing!! Help!! (As i am the family member in question..and not sure if I can get off the benefits...cant/too scared to pester my brother!!)
Thanks in advance!!
Marie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: At Home
Age: 46
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done the changing of beneficiaries a few times. It was 12 months now changed to 6 months from date of putting the person on your list. After the 6-months period you can change them to someone else or keep them on. You can change them anytime after that (ie you don't have to wait a further 6 months).
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's think about this
The problem we have with the fragmented union is a political one. The S/H union will do anything to undercut us and although there are a lot of ex L/H in S/H now the union is still made up of ex Australian airlines girls who have an intense dislike for us.
Then you have GM who after our union change went over to S/H and I’m sure he does not have anything nice to say about us either.
I know from some friends who went to S/H that they can have a great time at work unless they mention L/H and they have told me that some of the older girls go out of their way to give them a hard time. Notice that I said some and not all. The impression I get is that some of the S/H crew are still peeved that QF bought Australian airlines and their cosy little world changed forever.
To be honest a lot of us in L/H were not all that thrilled with the way things went either including the integrated seniority system. I’m sure the old TAA girls did not give integrated seniority to any of the crew from airlines they absorbed.
I have to be honest as well to say that I am less than impressed with the current L/H faaa as well and their dogmatic tunnel vision as surfside puts it.
Having said that, how do we fix the problem. The situation occurred and there is nothing we can do about it but we can improve it. Basically it takes two to tango and we can either continue this slanging match or we can be proactive together and try and head off Darth and his minions.
Unless we do something all of our conditions and that includes S/H will go down the tube and we will all look back at 2006 and say remember the good old days just as we do when we talk about the 70’s and 80’s and the TAA and Ansett days. Are we going to continue to try and undercut each other because if we do only Darth will win? We have to take the fight to the company and that means embarrassing them with information about their remuneration and bonuses.
If we continue the quietly ,quietly ,behind the doors ,confidential ,top secret approach that our current L/H faaa are so find of we are doomed.
Then you have GM who after our union change went over to S/H and I’m sure he does not have anything nice to say about us either.
I know from some friends who went to S/H that they can have a great time at work unless they mention L/H and they have told me that some of the older girls go out of their way to give them a hard time. Notice that I said some and not all. The impression I get is that some of the S/H crew are still peeved that QF bought Australian airlines and their cosy little world changed forever.
To be honest a lot of us in L/H were not all that thrilled with the way things went either including the integrated seniority system. I’m sure the old TAA girls did not give integrated seniority to any of the crew from airlines they absorbed.
I have to be honest as well to say that I am less than impressed with the current L/H faaa as well and their dogmatic tunnel vision as surfside puts it.
Having said that, how do we fix the problem. The situation occurred and there is nothing we can do about it but we can improve it. Basically it takes two to tango and we can either continue this slanging match or we can be proactive together and try and head off Darth and his minions.
Unless we do something all of our conditions and that includes S/H will go down the tube and we will all look back at 2006 and say remember the good old days just as we do when we talk about the 70’s and 80’s and the TAA and Ansett days. Are we going to continue to try and undercut each other because if we do only Darth will win? We have to take the fight to the company and that means embarrassing them with information about their remuneration and bonuses.
If we continue the quietly ,quietly ,behind the doors ,confidential ,top secret approach that our current L/H faaa are so find of we are doomed.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Favourites
Well, Lowerlobe you dont play favourites you are critical of everyone.
The ONLY thing that will save our situation is a change of Federal government.
Other than that ...we are cactus.
You will never get domestic and longhaul to agree to anything.
As has been highlighted it has been tried and failed.
The 2 people at fault...the presiedent of the domestics and his offsider the industrial relations officer..who I should point out used to work for the FAAA and left under a cloud.
The ONLY thing that will save our situation is a change of Federal government.
Other than that ...we are cactus.
You will never get domestic and longhaul to agree to anything.
As has been highlighted it has been tried and failed.
The 2 people at fault...the presiedent of the domestics and his offsider the industrial relations officer..who I should point out used to work for the FAAA and left under a cloud.