QANTAS - Australia II
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faaa Domestic/regional Newsletter
FAAA NEWSLETTER
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
(Domestic/Regional Division)
8 December, 2006 NAT12-06
Attention all FAAA Domestic/Regional Division Members
FAAA DIVISIONAL SECRETARY RESIGNATION
I wish to inform all FAAA Domestic/Regional members that I will be resigning from my position as Divisional Secretary as of 30 January 2007.
The 30 January 2007 is also the date I will cease my employment with Qantas Airways Limited.
My career as a Flight Attendant began in February 1989 with Australian Airlines then Qantas. My involvement in your Association began in 1989 and I have held various elected positions on and off throughout that period.
I thank all Flight Attendants for the opportunity in representing you over this period. It has been a privilege and I have always tried to do my best for all members regardless of uniform. It has been a pleasure and a personal highlight to represent such passionate members in a job that at times is misunderstood by some airline management and the community at large. Service is a key part of our role however we will first and foremost be Safety Professionals.
Thanks to all past and present elected officials who have supported me and what I have stood for over my FAAA career. Thanks to the FAAA Staff who are the backbone of the FAAA and are passionately committed to protecting and improving Flight Attendant conditions. Most of all I wish to take this opportunity to thank all 4200 members from the 15 airlines we represent for their support and feedback throughout my FAAA involvement.
Finally, my advice to all members is to stay passionate about your career and industry. We have faced numerous challenges and the reason we have dealt with these challenges is because we stayed united when faced with adversity. More than ever you need to stay together to ensure we look after our unique issues and conditions of employment as Flight Attendants.
The decision on who will be my replacement and fill the Casual vacancy created by my resignation is a decision for your Divisional Executive/Council and information on the outcome of this process will be relayed to you in the coming weeks.
Once again I thank you and wish you all well for the many challenges ahead.
This newsletter was written and authorised by Darryl Watkins (Divisional Secretary).
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
(Domestic/Regional Division)
8 December, 2006 NAT12-06
Attention all FAAA Domestic/Regional Division Members
FAAA DIVISIONAL SECRETARY RESIGNATION
I wish to inform all FAAA Domestic/Regional members that I will be resigning from my position as Divisional Secretary as of 30 January 2007.
The 30 January 2007 is also the date I will cease my employment with Qantas Airways Limited.
My career as a Flight Attendant began in February 1989 with Australian Airlines then Qantas. My involvement in your Association began in 1989 and I have held various elected positions on and off throughout that period.
I thank all Flight Attendants for the opportunity in representing you over this period. It has been a privilege and I have always tried to do my best for all members regardless of uniform. It has been a pleasure and a personal highlight to represent such passionate members in a job that at times is misunderstood by some airline management and the community at large. Service is a key part of our role however we will first and foremost be Safety Professionals.
Thanks to all past and present elected officials who have supported me and what I have stood for over my FAAA career. Thanks to the FAAA Staff who are the backbone of the FAAA and are passionately committed to protecting and improving Flight Attendant conditions. Most of all I wish to take this opportunity to thank all 4200 members from the 15 airlines we represent for their support and feedback throughout my FAAA involvement.
Finally, my advice to all members is to stay passionate about your career and industry. We have faced numerous challenges and the reason we have dealt with these challenges is because we stayed united when faced with adversity. More than ever you need to stay together to ensure we look after our unique issues and conditions of employment as Flight Attendants.
The decision on who will be my replacement and fill the Casual vacancy created by my resignation is a decision for your Divisional Executive/Council and information on the outcome of this process will be relayed to you in the coming weeks.
Once again I thank you and wish you all well for the many challenges ahead.
This newsletter was written and authorised by Darryl Watkins (Divisional Secretary).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reckon that getting the “facts” from the faaa is a little like being a marriage counselor.You only ever get HALF the story and HALF the truth and even then it is their version of the truth
You also have to know the answers to be able to ask the questions.
Eden99, I was at one of the first meetings in Sydney and there was NOTHING said about any ability by the company (or anyone who owns it) to be able to apply to have a post reform eba dismantled with only 90 days notice.
Nothing was said about the current eba being any different because it was signed off pre reform laws.
We were told that the only way to go was to negotiate a new eba.
In fact MM told us that if we were not scared after the meeting he was not doing his job.
I keep getting the feeling that the faaa only tell us what they want to tell us and boy don’t you guys get upset when we question you.
I thought it was only the company that told us selective and filtered information .
WHY do you want us so badly to sign a new eba when this can be thrown out like some unwanted item by the company with only 90 days notice.What is worse is the faaa telling us that this is the way to get stability and a better future.Thats true but only until the company wants to enact the new IR laws and that will probably be just after the next election.
We should have been told this at the meetings and not on pprune .the question is WHY?
You also have to know the answers to be able to ask the questions.
Eden99, I was at one of the first meetings in Sydney and there was NOTHING said about any ability by the company (or anyone who owns it) to be able to apply to have a post reform eba dismantled with only 90 days notice.
Nothing was said about the current eba being any different because it was signed off pre reform laws.
We were told that the only way to go was to negotiate a new eba.
In fact MM told us that if we were not scared after the meeting he was not doing his job.
I keep getting the feeling that the faaa only tell us what they want to tell us and boy don’t you guys get upset when we question you.
I thought it was only the company that told us selective and filtered information .
WHY do you want us so badly to sign a new eba when this can be thrown out like some unwanted item by the company with only 90 days notice.What is worse is the faaa telling us that this is the way to get stability and a better future.Thats true but only until the company wants to enact the new IR laws and that will probably be just after the next election.
We should have been told this at the meetings and not on pprune .the question is WHY?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok lets get this str8.
An EBA signed prior to march 06 (pre reform) can be terminated by the employers making application to the AIRC upon expiry and the AIRC must terminate it.
AN EBA signed after march 06 (post reform) can be cancelled with 90 days notice upon expiry if the employer makes application to the AIRC, and the AIRC must terminate it.
NOW..... heres the difference UPON "EXPIRY" they can be terminated either by 90 days notice if post reform or without the specification of notice with a pre reform EBA.
For Long Haul Crew...lets take this slowly.....OUR EBA is enforecable until its expires. If a new EBA replaces it ..IT TOO will be enforecable until it TOO expires depending on the length up to a maximum of 5 years.
Now......the company can offer AWA's to long haul crew individually RIGHT NOW. but you cant be forced to sign them. For instance if the company wanted to employe new crew or promote CSM or CSS they could do it on AWA. They do not have to do it under the EBA.
We live in dangerous times. I too went to the 1st meeting and it was made clear several times that much of the new laws are untested. The legal advice recieved by the FAAA is priveleged information but anyone who wants to view the actual advice would be welcome to go to the FAAA office and read it.
That is anyone capable of understanding its complexity. fortunately, the FAAA has two Lawyers on its paid staff, and any explanation required could easily be answered by them. YOu always get the whole truth from the current FAAA officials to the best of their knowledge. The trouble is often people ask questions that almost require a chrystal ball to answer and those questions i would imagine are the hardest to answer and the most complex and time consuming.
Long Haul crew have easy access to the FAAA office its 10 mins walk from sign on. Many members have used the opportunity to ring ahead and make sure someone is available and have taken the time to have their questions answered in person....Roaming wolf...if you are unsure of some things because of their complexity you would not be Robinson Crusoe.
Some of the smartest industrial minds in the country are still coming to grips with the workchoices legislation. I am comfortable that our officials are being advised by th best legal and industrial people available.
At the end of the day nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. If you want 100% guarantees then you need to be in the funeral industry. Its the only one that is 100% guaranteed.
An EBA signed prior to march 06 (pre reform) can be terminated by the employers making application to the AIRC upon expiry and the AIRC must terminate it.
AN EBA signed after march 06 (post reform) can be cancelled with 90 days notice upon expiry if the employer makes application to the AIRC, and the AIRC must terminate it.
NOW..... heres the difference UPON "EXPIRY" they can be terminated either by 90 days notice if post reform or without the specification of notice with a pre reform EBA.
For Long Haul Crew...lets take this slowly.....OUR EBA is enforecable until its expires. If a new EBA replaces it ..IT TOO will be enforecable until it TOO expires depending on the length up to a maximum of 5 years.
Now......the company can offer AWA's to long haul crew individually RIGHT NOW. but you cant be forced to sign them. For instance if the company wanted to employe new crew or promote CSM or CSS they could do it on AWA. They do not have to do it under the EBA.
We live in dangerous times. I too went to the 1st meeting and it was made clear several times that much of the new laws are untested. The legal advice recieved by the FAAA is priveleged information but anyone who wants to view the actual advice would be welcome to go to the FAAA office and read it.
That is anyone capable of understanding its complexity. fortunately, the FAAA has two Lawyers on its paid staff, and any explanation required could easily be answered by them. YOu always get the whole truth from the current FAAA officials to the best of their knowledge. The trouble is often people ask questions that almost require a chrystal ball to answer and those questions i would imagine are the hardest to answer and the most complex and time consuming.
Long Haul crew have easy access to the FAAA office its 10 mins walk from sign on. Many members have used the opportunity to ring ahead and make sure someone is available and have taken the time to have their questions answered in person....Roaming wolf...if you are unsure of some things because of their complexity you would not be Robinson Crusoe.
Some of the smartest industrial minds in the country are still coming to grips with the workchoices legislation. I am comfortable that our officials are being advised by th best legal and industrial people available.
At the end of the day nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. If you want 100% guarantees then you need to be in the funeral industry. Its the only one that is 100% guaranteed.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for you post Pegasus747
So you are telling us here categorically that a pre reform eba is no different from a post reform eba and both can be terminated by the company unilaterally and we cannot do anything about it.
In your first post I got the idea that there has to be a test case if the eba in question was to be terminated and was ratified before the new IR laws were enacted.
So you are telling us here categorically that a pre reform eba is no different from a post reform eba and both can be terminated by the company unilaterally and we cannot do anything about it.
In your first post I got the idea that there has to be a test case if the eba in question was to be terminated and was ratified before the new IR laws were enacted.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes roaming wolf , thats precisely what i am saying. The pre reform legislation also allowed for EBA's to be terminated by the commission on application by the company.
I would suggest that this rarely happened because there were always EBA's to replace them.
Now the law provides for a range of options other than EBA's negotiated collectively. Throughout 2006 a number of EBA's were terminated.
The real danger for LH crew or any QF group employee is not having an ongoing EBA.
The FAAA is saying that if a new EBA can be negotiated that would be a very good thing. If the price of getting another EBA ( and the protection that flows from it) is "too high" , then the likely scenario would be to wait out the current EBA expiry.
That of course is not the preferred option. The Company has given no indication in writing or publicly that they will negotiate another EBA for Long Haul Crew.
The FAAA is saying at their meetings that another EBA is their preferred option and as soon as a new EBA can be negotiated that provides ongoing job security, growth for the long haul division, and a range of things discussed at the meetings then flight attendants will get a vote on it.
The COmpany has not approached the UNion asking for negotiations to commence early, nor have the FAAA approached the Company. What is being discussed at the meetings are a range of options open to LH crew.
Hope that clears things up a little
I would suggest that this rarely happened because there were always EBA's to replace them.
Now the law provides for a range of options other than EBA's negotiated collectively. Throughout 2006 a number of EBA's were terminated.
The real danger for LH crew or any QF group employee is not having an ongoing EBA.
The FAAA is saying that if a new EBA can be negotiated that would be a very good thing. If the price of getting another EBA ( and the protection that flows from it) is "too high" , then the likely scenario would be to wait out the current EBA expiry.
That of course is not the preferred option. The Company has given no indication in writing or publicly that they will negotiate another EBA for Long Haul Crew.
The FAAA is saying at their meetings that another EBA is their preferred option and as soon as a new EBA can be negotiated that provides ongoing job security, growth for the long haul division, and a range of things discussed at the meetings then flight attendants will get a vote on it.
The COmpany has not approached the UNion asking for negotiations to commence early, nor have the FAAA approached the Company. What is being discussed at the meetings are a range of options open to LH crew.
Hope that clears things up a little
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: springfield retirement castle
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegasus, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you because I believe that we both drink from the same well.
You seem a decent and well intentioned person who is trying to do the best by the people you represent.
But there is a significant difference between pre and post March 27 2006 EBAs.
It's not that simple to terminate a pre reform EBA. Most of the pre reform EBAs that have been terminated by the IRC this year (and they have been as rare as hen's teeth), have been done so due to the intransigence of the employer and at the request of employees and their representatives. To achieve this is a costly (read uneconomic), and time consuming exercise for both parties.
This won't affect me, as I'm enjoying my sunset years. However I am concerned that the well-being of a large group of people may be sacrificed simply to further enrich a tiny minority of individuals who are already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most of us.
You seem a decent and well intentioned person who is trying to do the best by the people you represent.
But there is a significant difference between pre and post March 27 2006 EBAs.
It's not that simple to terminate a pre reform EBA. Most of the pre reform EBAs that have been terminated by the IRC this year (and they have been as rare as hen's teeth), have been done so due to the intransigence of the employer and at the request of employees and their representatives. To achieve this is a costly (read uneconomic), and time consuming exercise for both parties.
This won't affect me, as I'm enjoying my sunset years. However I am concerned that the well-being of a large group of people may be sacrificed simply to further enrich a tiny minority of individuals who are already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most of us.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly Pegasus I don’t understand what your point is.
The point of the difference between a pre and post eba is a legal one and it would be interesting to see a legal opinion in writing and not on pprune or on the phone from anyone at the faaa office.
I think it is time the faaa put out a newsletter showing the opinion on this matter from a high legal source and not the in office source..
But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days.
WHAT sort of protection is THAT.
Is this not a case of the devil we know especially if the number of pre existing eba’s being terminated is rare.
Why should we tempt fate when even you say the law is very complicated.
And I ask again why was this not talked about at the meetings.We should be given all the facts and not just the ones you want us to know about.And stop pretending that your not on the union.
The point of the difference between a pre and post eba is a legal one and it would be interesting to see a legal opinion in writing and not on pprune or on the phone from anyone at the faaa office.
I think it is time the faaa put out a newsletter showing the opinion on this matter from a high legal source and not the in office source..
But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days.
WHAT sort of protection is THAT.
Is this not a case of the devil we know especially if the number of pre existing eba’s being terminated is rare.
Why should we tempt fate when even you say the law is very complicated.
And I ask again why was this not talked about at the meetings.We should be given all the facts and not just the ones you want us to know about.And stop pretending that your not on the union.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Termination Of Eba's Etc Etc Etc
I note the quality of comments on here does not get better.....
I'll try to restrain my impatience with some on here .... who i guess, are trying to "help" with their comments, however, to be blunt they are wrong comments and clearly indicate no understanding of issues, particularly matters such as termination of EBA's or even more importantly the deep danger that confronts L/H cabin crew in particular, from both the industrial laws, the fact that we are the most expensive cabin crew in Qantas and the imminent announcement that in fact Qantas will be taken over by the Macquarie Bank consortium.
OK ..I'll try ...probably in vain, to explain to roamingwolf. in particular ,about the rules surrounding termination of EBA's.
It's simple..... all EBA's whether pre or post reform.... can be terminated by an employer when they "nominally expire"... in the case of LH (17 DECEMBER 2007) OR AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES (31 DECEMBER 2007).
jaded boiler, you substantially do understand the process as does Pegasus 747. jaded boiler, without wanting to start an academic debate with you, termination is not a difficult process for an employer to overcome, with a pre reform EBA (WHEN IT EXPIRES).
Now back to roamingwolf, you say to pegasus 747, "But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days."
What pegasus is saying..... firstly is... that a pre-reform EBA LIKE THe L/H EBA, can be terminated, ONCE IT EXPIRES, upon application of the employer to the Commission and once some criteria are met...which are not difficul;t criteria to meet. The 90 days period is for the notice required to terminate a post reform EBA, again once the nominal expiry of an agreement is reached.
roamingwolf,it seems to me, from your posted comments that you thing a new EBA can simply be terminated AT ANY POINT by an employer with 90 days notice. This is not the case. The references to terminations are all in the context of when an existing EBA, WHETHER A PRE OR POST REFORM reaches its expiry date.
HOPE THAT HELPS EVERYONE. AGAIN. AS Eden99 and Pegasus747 have said, rather than completely getting tied up in knots and misunderstanding issues...people should contact the FAAA. I assure you, they completely understand these issues.
On the point of printing legal opinions etc in public..this is not a wise or sensible thing to do...it merely allows the Company to gain an insight into the strategic thinking of the FAAA.
roamingwolf, i realise you are actually thinking about these issues,,,so please don't take my comments, however blunt and harsh as they may seem, as a putdown of you :-)
Also, so there is no confusion, although pegasus747 has touched upon it, Qantas is not rushing to say to the FAAA that it indeed is even interested in talking about any EBA negotiations, whether early or at normal time.
This may give a clue to their thinking.... AWA's (individual contracts)?
Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one. It only became topical because cabin crew were telling MM that pilots were saying that a pre reform EBA could live on forever. This issue was then discussed at all subsequent meetings.
The Pilots union now knows that this is not the case.
I'll try to restrain my impatience with some on here .... who i guess, are trying to "help" with their comments, however, to be blunt they are wrong comments and clearly indicate no understanding of issues, particularly matters such as termination of EBA's or even more importantly the deep danger that confronts L/H cabin crew in particular, from both the industrial laws, the fact that we are the most expensive cabin crew in Qantas and the imminent announcement that in fact Qantas will be taken over by the Macquarie Bank consortium.
OK ..I'll try ...probably in vain, to explain to roamingwolf. in particular ,about the rules surrounding termination of EBA's.
It's simple..... all EBA's whether pre or post reform.... can be terminated by an employer when they "nominally expire"... in the case of LH (17 DECEMBER 2007) OR AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES (31 DECEMBER 2007).
jaded boiler, you substantially do understand the process as does Pegasus 747. jaded boiler, without wanting to start an academic debate with you, termination is not a difficult process for an employer to overcome, with a pre reform EBA (WHEN IT EXPIRES).
Now back to roamingwolf, you say to pegasus 747, "But the point I can’t understand is your insistence that a new eba is the way to go for as you put it “the protection that flows from it” when you have also admitted that it can be terminated after 90 days."
What pegasus is saying..... firstly is... that a pre-reform EBA LIKE THe L/H EBA, can be terminated, ONCE IT EXPIRES, upon application of the employer to the Commission and once some criteria are met...which are not difficul;t criteria to meet. The 90 days period is for the notice required to terminate a post reform EBA, again once the nominal expiry of an agreement is reached.
roamingwolf,it seems to me, from your posted comments that you thing a new EBA can simply be terminated AT ANY POINT by an employer with 90 days notice. This is not the case. The references to terminations are all in the context of when an existing EBA, WHETHER A PRE OR POST REFORM reaches its expiry date.
HOPE THAT HELPS EVERYONE. AGAIN. AS Eden99 and Pegasus747 have said, rather than completely getting tied up in knots and misunderstanding issues...people should contact the FAAA. I assure you, they completely understand these issues.
On the point of printing legal opinions etc in public..this is not a wise or sensible thing to do...it merely allows the Company to gain an insight into the strategic thinking of the FAAA.
roamingwolf, i realise you are actually thinking about these issues,,,so please don't take my comments, however blunt and harsh as they may seem, as a putdown of you :-)
Also, so there is no confusion, although pegasus747 has touched upon it, Qantas is not rushing to say to the FAAA that it indeed is even interested in talking about any EBA negotiations, whether early or at normal time.
This may give a clue to their thinking.... AWA's (individual contracts)?
Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one. It only became topical because cabin crew were telling MM that pilots were saying that a pre reform EBA could live on forever. This issue was then discussed at all subsequent meetings.
The Pilots union now knows that this is not the case.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correction
we, lh crew are NOT the most expensive cabin crew in QF. get off this line of communications and scare tactics. my mate pointed out and he went to the companies meetings according to THEM there is no difference between sh and lh. i agree on the industrial issues it is very complex and many have not been tested in court. so, lets move on and see what can be negotiated and what kind of compromise comes to the membership.
on another issue the proposed take-over bid by MAQ and its raiders would also massively affect our visitors and the rest of middle management.they should be equally concerned about the future.
on another issue the proposed take-over bid by MAQ and its raiders would also massively affect our visitors and the rest of middle management.they should be equally concerned about the future.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qcc2 COMMENTS
qcc2, it is quite incredible that you can be so ignorant.
GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!
NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY.
Any assertions by qcc2 or anyone else that Qantas managers have stated that we are not more expensive than SH is a LIE. Anyone who maintains that is a liar too.
Qantas Long Haul crew are :
1)paid on average 20% more on their hourly rates , just to start with
2) Qantas LH crew are paid for 182.3 per 8 weeks.... SH are paid their lower rates of pay on the basis of 246 hours per 8 weeks
3) SH allowances in terms of overseas and domestic meal allowances are massively lower than L/H
4) SH EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF MAM CASUALS, AGAIN MASSIVELY CHEAPER THAN LONG HAUL CREW.
qcc2, it's people like you who are a real problem. You know nothing, you listen to so-called "friends" who relay you crap, that you then assert is gospel.
Currently, nearly all the discretionary pool of work that the Company controls in the Divisional Flying pool is being directed to SH.
That is because they(SH) are cheaper. Also, SH has not had the 3 rounds of redundancy that LH has had since 2001.
qcc2 you ought to refrain from making any comments on here, except about matters that you do know about.
Thank God, you don't have the industrial interests of 3000 LH crew in your hands. It would be like Alice in wonderland!
GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!
NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY.
Any assertions by qcc2 or anyone else that Qantas managers have stated that we are not more expensive than SH is a LIE. Anyone who maintains that is a liar too.
Qantas Long Haul crew are :
1)paid on average 20% more on their hourly rates , just to start with
2) Qantas LH crew are paid for 182.3 per 8 weeks.... SH are paid their lower rates of pay on the basis of 246 hours per 8 weeks
3) SH allowances in terms of overseas and domestic meal allowances are massively lower than L/H
4) SH EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF MAM CASUALS, AGAIN MASSIVELY CHEAPER THAN LONG HAUL CREW.
qcc2, it's people like you who are a real problem. You know nothing, you listen to so-called "friends" who relay you crap, that you then assert is gospel.
Currently, nearly all the discretionary pool of work that the Company controls in the Divisional Flying pool is being directed to SH.
That is because they(SH) are cheaper. Also, SH has not had the 3 rounds of redundancy that LH has had since 2001.
qcc2 you ought to refrain from making any comments on here, except about matters that you do know about.
Thank God, you don't have the industrial interests of 3000 LH crew in your hands. It would be like Alice in wonderland!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guardian1
Guardy, i can understand why you get irritated with comments
like those of qcc2.
Also, if we were cheaper than SH, we would not be the ones being directed on Long Service Leave the last 2 years, as the work is transferred over to SH.
Obviously, its being transferred to SH because they are cheaper, while we are sent on months of directed LSL.
SH would not have grown by nearly a 1000 flight attendants the last 5 years, while we have dropped over a 1000 if they were not cheaper.
Guardian1, if you are a senior official of the FAAA and i realise you would not want to say if you are or you are not... please be aware that you guys have the vast bulk of LH crew supporting you. People realise there is a lot of talent in the leadership of the LH FAAA .
like those of qcc2.Also, if we were cheaper than SH, we would not be the ones being directed on Long Service Leave the last 2 years, as the work is transferred over to SH.
Obviously, its being transferred to SH because they are cheaper, while we are sent on months of directed LSL.
SH would not have grown by nearly a 1000 flight attendants the last 5 years, while we have dropped over a 1000 if they were not cheaper.
Guardian1, if you are a senior official of the FAAA and i realise you would not want to say if you are or you are not... please be aware that you guys have the vast bulk of LH crew supporting you. People realise there is a lot of talent in the leadership of the LH FAAA .
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time.....gentlemen!!!
Can we move on now.
We all know by now , Guardian, Pegasus and Eden are all one of the same-FAAA officials. So as a block they have their view.
Others have a contrary view.
Bingo , we have a democratic process.
Lets not get too carried away though, As Guadian said , with the Texas Rangers about to boot their way into the Qantas Board, this debate could be totally meaningless.
Because as stated before it will be:
RIP, RORT AND ROUT.
We all know by now , Guardian, Pegasus and Eden are all one of the same-FAAA officials. So as a block they have their view.
Others have a contrary view.
Bingo , we have a democratic process.
Lets not get too carried away though, As Guadian said , with the Texas Rangers about to boot their way into the Qantas Board, this debate could be totally meaningless.
Because as stated before it will be:
RIP, RORT AND ROUT.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I reckon your right stubby I also think it is important to talk about these things because if we don’t then we won’t be around much longer.
They reckon the meek inherit the earth but that’s rubbish and if we don’t stand up for ourselves we will get walked on.
we have jaded boiler telling us he reckons the faaa is wrong with the interpretation of our eba .As well we have the faaa trinity telling us that jaded boiler is wrong and we should go for a new eba.
Whats wrong with what the faaa has just said is that they have just told the company that we are willing to go onto the shorthaul award because they have just posted a letter telling us how much cheaper s/h are than us.
I reckon it might be time for the faaa to approach the Mac bank and see if they can do a deal there that might appeal to them
They reckon the meek inherit the earth but that’s rubbish and if we don’t stand up for ourselves we will get walked on.
we have jaded boiler telling us he reckons the faaa is wrong with the interpretation of our eba .As well we have the faaa trinity telling us that jaded boiler is wrong and we should go for a new eba.
Whats wrong with what the faaa has just said is that they have just told the company that we are willing to go onto the shorthaul award because they have just posted a letter telling us how much cheaper s/h are than us.
I reckon it might be time for the faaa to approach the Mac bank and see if they can do a deal there that might appeal to them
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it refreshing that someone else (for a change) is pointing out to the FAAA and it's supporter that there are other viewpoints and perhaps avenues to look at.
I do find it a little more than disconcerting that an elected official of our union would make the following public post regarding cabin crew when they are the people he is supposed to represent.
"NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY."
The best quote I like is this one from Guardian1:
"Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one"
Nice one Guardian1
I do find it a little more than disconcerting that an elected official of our union would make the following public post regarding cabin crew when they are the people he is supposed to represent.
"NO WONDER THE COMPANY LAUGHS AT CABIN CREW PRIVATELY."
The best quote I like is this one from Guardian1:
"Finally, the issue of early termination of EBA's was discussed at nearly every of the FAAA meetings... maybe not the first one"
Nice one Guardian1
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
The truth hurts, doesn't it lowerlobe?
Other viewpoints and avenues are fine, as long as they are feasible and practical and actually based on even a small amount of knowledge.
The trouble with people like lowerlobe particularly, is that they have a demonstrated history of being anti FAAA ,perhaps because they are not even union members. Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
Are my comments arrogant? perhaps...... but they are spot on and correct.
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.
Those of you on here who think that you are more capable than the current officials and staff of the FAAA, should band together and try to get crew to elect you.
Unlike Rudd and Gillard you certainly would not be a "dream team" .
Nevertheless, it would provide a bit of entertainment and comedy to watch your silly ideas be put forward and watch the likes of Mijatov and Reed shred you.
Other viewpoints and avenues are fine, as long as they are feasible and practical and actually based on even a small amount of knowledge.
The trouble with people like lowerlobe particularly, is that they have a demonstrated history of being anti FAAA ,perhaps because they are not even union members. Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
Are my comments arrogant? perhaps...... but they are spot on and correct.
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.
Those of you on here who think that you are more capable than the current officials and staff of the FAAA, should band together and try to get crew to elect you.
Unlike Rudd and Gillard you certainly would not be a "dream team" .
Nevertheless, it would provide a bit of entertainment and comedy to watch your silly ideas be put forward and watch the likes of Mijatov and Reed shred you.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other viewpoints and avenues are fine, as long as they are feasible and practical and actually based on even a small amount of knowledge.
......
Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
......
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.
......
Also, their "suggestions" are nearly always pure nonsense and underscore how little they know about anything remotely of an industrial nature.
......
Nonsense, should not be encouraged and humoured..... particularly when it would harshly impact on 3000 LH crew if given half a chance.
Exactly the reasons I will continue to dispute the incorrect statements made on here.
Unfortunately the only way the wild mob on here can respond when their deception is uncovered, is to try to discredit those who expose them by ridiculing with out of context quotes and then branding them as being management or FAAA reps.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Eden usual your posts are big on ridicule but extremely light on substance if not completely devoid of it at all.
You did not answer one of my points but then I don’t really expect you too as you wouldn’t know how.
Twiggs, well as usual you are just trying to score some points after your disastrous posts of late but as usual fall very short of even looking like it.
I note that not one of you has commented on the idea that roaming wolf made about approaching the Mac bank but then I suppose as usual S/H FAAA has probably already done so or is thinking about it and you will be outflanked AGAIN.
You did not answer one of my points but then I don’t really expect you too as you wouldn’t know how.
Twiggs, well as usual you are just trying to score some points after your disastrous posts of late but as usual fall very short of even looking like it.
I note that not one of you has commented on the idea that roaming wolf made about approaching the Mac bank but then I suppose as usual S/H FAAA has probably already done so or is thinking about it and you will be outflanked AGAIN.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh Lowerlobe, like all nags in a race of thoroughbreds you are the last to finish.
The FAAA along with the Qantas Unions have been meeting with Macquarie Bank and the Institutional Share Holders of Qantas. Many Flight Attendants would have picked that up from the recent FAAA meetings but not you of course as you are probably not an FAAA member, as most who critisize the FAAA are not.
The Texas Group are not interested in Unions, they are only interested in making sizeable returns on their investments. On that basis i think that you Lowerlobe should sell yourself to them for what you are worth and then they could make a sizeable profit by selling you for what YOU think you are worth.
The Combined Qantas Unions, the ACTU and the FAAA LH/SH do not need your advice Lowerlobe. The source of their wisdom comes from a greater source than the last person you spoke to who usually is your greatest influence
The FAAA along with the Qantas Unions have been meeting with Macquarie Bank and the Institutional Share Holders of Qantas. Many Flight Attendants would have picked that up from the recent FAAA meetings but not you of course as you are probably not an FAAA member, as most who critisize the FAAA are not.
The Texas Group are not interested in Unions, they are only interested in making sizeable returns on their investments. On that basis i think that you Lowerlobe should sell yourself to them for what you are worth and then they could make a sizeable profit by selling you for what YOU think you are worth.
The Combined Qantas Unions, the ACTU and the FAAA LH/SH do not need your advice Lowerlobe. The source of their wisdom comes from a greater source than the last person you spoke to who usually is your greatest influence