QANTAS - Australia IV
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sydney s/h and lowerlobe
sydney s/h- i have never used the word scab.
hawk eye's post about the actions of some of the fixed term contract crew that were employed by Qantas in L/H in 2004, pretty much reflect my view also.
lowerlobe- you actually ask reasonable questions for the first time.... and without an attack on the FAAA. You therefore are entitled to answers in the same spirit.
In regard to o/s based crew numbers EBA 7 stipulates a cap of 870. The FAAA in the Planning and Scheduling committee, gets this information from the Company. Also, Qantas Operations have these details and if Qantas wanted to deceive, it would be quickly uncovered.
The point that needs to be made lowerlobe, is that the cap on O/S bases is no longer "legal" if i can put it that way. WHY?? WELL BECAUSE WORKCHOICES MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANY RESTRICTION TO BE PLACED ON AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO LABOUR HIRE ARRANGEMENTS.
That means, Qantas can hire unlimited people O/S ......... it is only because of other arrangements that this has not already occurred. Constructive engagement with the Company, like the JFK dispensation provides an incentive for the Company not to move in a provocative manner in relation to other issues such as increasing O/S based numbers.
That is why decisions like JFK are made in part.... and it's not always possible to discuss these subtleties in a public manner.
In relation to MAM casuals- approx 400 are currently employed. These crew are at the lowest pay point in the S/H pay structure and are obviously extremely attractive to employ from Qantas' perspective.
What was said by Eden99, for example is exactly correct- there are several groups of cabin crew employed by Qantas, including MAM casuals that a much more attractive to employ as compared to L/H crew.
This is no secret to anyone...... suggestions that this should not be discussed with L/H cabin crew are breathtaking and unbelievable.
How can the FAAA involve the membership in getting their views about what must be done to prevent a close down of the LH Division if we all can't actually confront facts and figures??
Roamingwolf's position on this is quite astounding...but as i indicated before, some individuals are blinkered and cannot be swayed by logical and rational argument.
hawk eye's post about the actions of some of the fixed term contract crew that were employed by Qantas in L/H in 2004, pretty much reflect my view also.
lowerlobe- you actually ask reasonable questions for the first time.... and without an attack on the FAAA. You therefore are entitled to answers in the same spirit.
In regard to o/s based crew numbers EBA 7 stipulates a cap of 870. The FAAA in the Planning and Scheduling committee, gets this information from the Company. Also, Qantas Operations have these details and if Qantas wanted to deceive, it would be quickly uncovered.
The point that needs to be made lowerlobe, is that the cap on O/S bases is no longer "legal" if i can put it that way. WHY?? WELL BECAUSE WORKCHOICES MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANY RESTRICTION TO BE PLACED ON AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO LABOUR HIRE ARRANGEMENTS.
That means, Qantas can hire unlimited people O/S ......... it is only because of other arrangements that this has not already occurred. Constructive engagement with the Company, like the JFK dispensation provides an incentive for the Company not to move in a provocative manner in relation to other issues such as increasing O/S based numbers.
That is why decisions like JFK are made in part.... and it's not always possible to discuss these subtleties in a public manner.
In relation to MAM casuals- approx 400 are currently employed. These crew are at the lowest pay point in the S/H pay structure and are obviously extremely attractive to employ from Qantas' perspective.
What was said by Eden99, for example is exactly correct- there are several groups of cabin crew employed by Qantas, including MAM casuals that a much more attractive to employ as compared to L/H crew.
This is no secret to anyone...... suggestions that this should not be discussed with L/H cabin crew are breathtaking and unbelievable.
How can the FAAA involve the membership in getting their views about what must be done to prevent a close down of the LH Division if we all can't actually confront facts and figures??
Roamingwolf's position on this is quite astounding...but as i indicated before, some individuals are blinkered and cannot be swayed by logical and rational argument.
Sydney s/h
In relation to your point about the seniority system for permanent crew, I guess as crew leave, and are not replaced by other permanent crew, we will get rosters that are further impacted by demand days. I think that some of the more junior fa's already get demand days on almost every day of their roster now.
I heard from some casual crew that the company is looking at introducing seniority for bidding amongst contract C casuals. Apparently many of them are unhappy with the current roster system, and this will give them a better chance of getting a roster they are happy with.
From your information about the number of MAM training schools which are currently going through, I can only assume that short haul must be getting a large increase in the amount of flying. The company says we currently have a surplus, so something must be going on if they are employing all these people!!
Interesting times ahead...
In relation to your point about the seniority system for permanent crew, I guess as crew leave, and are not replaced by other permanent crew, we will get rosters that are further impacted by demand days. I think that some of the more junior fa's already get demand days on almost every day of their roster now.
I heard from some casual crew that the company is looking at introducing seniority for bidding amongst contract C casuals. Apparently many of them are unhappy with the current roster system, and this will give them a better chance of getting a roster they are happy with.
From your information about the number of MAM training schools which are currently going through, I can only assume that short haul must be getting a large increase in the amount of flying. The company says we currently have a surplus, so something must be going on if they are employing all these people!!
Interesting times ahead...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mass recruitment of MAM casuals in shorthaul is in preparation for the end of the current shorthaul EBA. I have it on very good authority that the company is looking at removing band payments for shorthaul crew for the next EBA.
As for the 747-300’s. There are only now 4 left operating as VH-EBT is now out of hours and is being scraped or sold. They will also only be operating domestic sectors (unless used for disruptions) for the remainder of there service life.
As for the 747-300’s. There are only now 4 left operating as VH-EBT is now out of hours and is being scraped or sold. They will also only be operating domestic sectors (unless used for disruptions) for the remainder of there service life.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recruitment within SH has been on-going now for a number of years this is nothing new.
Everything including bands is up for negotiation in the next EBA. I highly doubt you will see mass resignations.
The number 1 reason for the increase in recruitment is because the flying within SH has increased, we have natural attrition through people leaving plus VR, the company are doing the annual number crunch and sending perm crew onto LWOP, temp part time etc and as usual we do not have the crew to cover the flying program therefore the cheaper option of MAM are recruited. Nothing new, this happens every year.
As for the 747 if we are trained on the 747-300 wouldnt we also be able to operate the 400 as we currently do with other aircraft types?
Everything including bands is up for negotiation in the next EBA. I highly doubt you will see mass resignations.
The number 1 reason for the increase in recruitment is because the flying within SH has increased, we have natural attrition through people leaving plus VR, the company are doing the annual number crunch and sending perm crew onto LWOP, temp part time etc and as usual we do not have the crew to cover the flying program therefore the cheaper option of MAM are recruited. Nothing new, this happens every year.
As for the 747 if we are trained on the 747-300 wouldnt we also be able to operate the 400 as we currently do with other aircraft types?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is only one
issue with S/H operating the 743. CASA framework requires 3 aircraft types with one varient. S/H is up to the max. lets see what the company comes up when the 787 turns up in sydney 09
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorthaul Aircraft Types
How many aircraft types does shorthaul currently operate?
There is a CASA limit.
The 747.400 has a different "footprint"to the 300 and therefore constitutes a different "type"
To get around this the company may offer/require exclusivity to an aircraft type.
Someone has indicated that the A380 may become the elite fleet with crews having exclusivity to this type.
There is a CASA limit.
The 747.400 has a different "footprint"to the 300 and therefore constitutes a different "type"
To get around this the company may offer/require exclusivity to an aircraft type.
Someone has indicated that the A380 may become the elite fleet with crews having exclusivity to this type.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA
Talk to CASA and you will find that there enough differences to provide for an altered footprint.
Much the same way as the Combi and SP were different..
There are door differences and equipment differences,underfloor crew rest etc.
Talk to CASA and they will bear this out.
Much the same way as the Combi and SP were different..
There are door differences and equipment differences,underfloor crew rest etc.
Talk to CASA and they will bear this out.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rumour in Brisvegas is that all LH crew have been made to take lsl next bid period....................hence no long haul flying outta brissy
on the flip side Lh supposed to be getting SIN back
go figure
on the flip side Lh supposed to be getting SIN back
go figure
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Worst Of The Best ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!
Keep this up and this forum will get closed down once again.
Do you ever read yourselves on here.
This is supposed to be a forum of rumour busting and points of interest.
Not about continually attacking each other and one upmanship.
Short haul vs Long Haul vs jetstar vs jetstar intnl and on and on.Unbelievable.
You must be bloody insecure the lot of you.
Lets try a new tact.
if someone starts becoming aggressive and personal or makes comments which are not in the positive , mature,and reasonable spirit then report that person to the moderator.
This forum has the potential to be a positive discussion board.
The way you lot can not restrain yourselves, god i pity the Company, the union and the passengers.
Im embarrassed that you are my colleagues.
The behaviour you lot continually display on here gives the Company the right to believe their clause 11s arent working as you still obviously fly.
Fortunately I believe you are a mixed up lost insecure lot who are a minority.
If you have posted on here without continually slanging off at each other then please ignore my remarks.
I too have been guilty of losing my cool with one individual on here but the moderator assisted me in keeping my cool and not getting suckered into such childish behaviour since.
As the moderator (tightslot ) so aptly says play nice. if you cant then go somewhere else to play and fly. There are other airlines out there more suited to some of your personalities.
Enough!!!!
Keep this up and this forum will get closed down once again.
Do you ever read yourselves on here.
This is supposed to be a forum of rumour busting and points of interest.
Not about continually attacking each other and one upmanship.
Short haul vs Long Haul vs jetstar vs jetstar intnl and on and on.Unbelievable.
You must be bloody insecure the lot of you.
Lets try a new tact.
if someone starts becoming aggressive and personal or makes comments which are not in the positive , mature,and reasonable spirit then report that person to the moderator.
This forum has the potential to be a positive discussion board.
The way you lot can not restrain yourselves, god i pity the Company, the union and the passengers.
Im embarrassed that you are my colleagues.
The behaviour you lot continually display on here gives the Company the right to believe their clause 11s arent working as you still obviously fly.
Fortunately I believe you are a mixed up lost insecure lot who are a minority.
If you have posted on here without continually slanging off at each other then please ignore my remarks.
I too have been guilty of losing my cool with one individual on here but the moderator assisted me in keeping my cool and not getting suckered into such childish behaviour since.
As the moderator (tightslot ) so aptly says play nice. if you cant then go somewhere else to play and fly. There are other airlines out there more suited to some of your personalities.
Enough!!!!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedbirdhouse.... Ask your union.......
I did and apparently they answered....
Hawkeye's correct and that is why I tried to inject a vein of humour into this thread.
To those who post here , you realise that Tightslot is giving us enough rope in the hope that we will hang ourselves !!!!!
Our current situation will always be emotive but let's try and keep it down to a dull roar
How many times have we seen crew that on one hand complain about rude pax and then when you go out as a crew for dinner do exactly the same thing.We are our own worst enemies at times....
I did and apparently they answered....
Hawkeye's correct and that is why I tried to inject a vein of humour into this thread.
To those who post here , you realise that Tightslot is giving us enough rope in the hope that we will hang ourselves !!!!!
Our current situation will always be emotive but let's try and keep it down to a dull roar
How many times have we seen crew that on one hand complain about rude pax and then when you go out as a crew for dinner do exactly the same thing.We are our own worst enemies at times....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Takeover...Not A Done Deal
APA have extended the acceptance date from 09/03/2007 to 03/04/2007.
They are having a ring around trying to encourage shareholders to accept the offer.
It aint over yet folks.
They are having a ring around trying to encourage shareholders to accept the offer.
It aint over yet folks.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....'mad as hell & I'm not going to take it anymore!!
I've had had it with the clowns who masquerade as "managers".
Yesterday , I was interrogated for 45 min over some innane pax complaint about a CSM's PA about an IFE failure.
SO WHAT IS NEW!!!!!!
The buffoon was verbalising me to the point that I would say:
"Yes , the CSM was way out of line and made an inappropriate PA".
......as if.
Look.......if you're ( CCTM) reading this.
1. the IFE system is stuffed.......derrrrrrrr
2.Pax are all jacked off.
3.this is L/H ....we don't rat on one of our own.!!!
My advice:
1.buy Saturdays SMH
2. look at the back of the Careers section for Car Park attendants-casual.
3. Submit your CV.
4. Leave us .......pleeeze
My only wish is that when/if the APA crew rock in......they will spot light -slack performance and punt these buffooons over the fence
Yesterday , I was interrogated for 45 min over some innane pax complaint about a CSM's PA about an IFE failure.
SO WHAT IS NEW!!!!!!
The buffoon was verbalising me to the point that I would say:
"Yes , the CSM was way out of line and made an inappropriate PA".
......as if.
Look.......if you're ( CCTM) reading this.
1. the IFE system is stuffed.......derrrrrrrr
2.Pax are all jacked off.
3.this is L/H ....we don't rat on one of our own.!!!
My advice:
1.buy Saturdays SMH
2. look at the back of the Careers section for Car Park attendants-casual.
3. Submit your CV.
4. Leave us .......pleeeze
My only wish is that when/if the APA crew rock in......they will spot light -slack performance and punt these buffooons over the fence
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly , beware Stubby as the visitors do read this thread and even they can SOMETIMES put two and two together.
Secondly ,I understand that the visitor told Stubby it was a pax complaint and it could have been BUT.............
Do you really know it wasn't one of the new breed of crew doing a bit of office crawling.Some of the visitors actively encourage information trading ...if you know what I mean.
Or perhaps it was a paxing crew or crew on holidays !!!!
Unfortunately you have to look over your shoulders as well these days....
Secondly ,I understand that the visitor told Stubby it was a pax complaint and it could have been BUT.............
Do you really know it wasn't one of the new breed of crew doing a bit of office crawling.Some of the visitors actively encourage information trading ...if you know what I mean.
Or perhaps it was a paxing crew or crew on holidays !!!!
Unfortunately you have to look over your shoulders as well these days....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, very well said lowerlobe and Stubby Jumbo....both providing salient comment and in the case of LL sound advice.
The FAAA has just issued a news letter that deals with this very subject as a warning to crew being "iterrogated" by the CCTM's.
Disciplinaries – “Clause 11’s”
Crew would be aware that after continued pressure and outrage from both the FAAA and crew themselves, the Company has resorted back to more informal methods of dealing with incidents involving crew.
However, we still have major concerns regarding the way that crew management is seeking to “manage” crew. The approach of individual managers is often inconsistent and piecemeal. We will be meeting with the Company to further address these issues and our concerns about the clause 11 process generally.
We also have serious concerns regarding the conduct of the “clause 11” formal disciplinary proceedings by crew management. If you are asked to report back to the Company regarding any incident, please do not hesitate to contact the Association for advice. You may be giving a manager just an update regarding a flight. Or you may potentially be an important witness to an event that could have major impacts on a crew member – the disciplinary outcome could cost them their job. Never sign a document without reading it carefully and fully agreeing with the content – you will have no control over where this document goes or how it will be used. Don’t just sign it as you are about to sign on or off. Think about the implications of your actions.
Even if the incident involves a member of the Association (as they mostly do), you can seek confidential advice from the Association. The Association uses the practice of “Chinese walls” where individual members can seek confidential advice from another official, even though the Association may be representing other individuals involved in the same incident. The advice given will best represent your interests.
The FAAA has just issued a news letter that deals with this very subject as a warning to crew being "iterrogated" by the CCTM's.
Disciplinaries – “Clause 11’s”
Crew would be aware that after continued pressure and outrage from both the FAAA and crew themselves, the Company has resorted back to more informal methods of dealing with incidents involving crew.
However, we still have major concerns regarding the way that crew management is seeking to “manage” crew. The approach of individual managers is often inconsistent and piecemeal. We will be meeting with the Company to further address these issues and our concerns about the clause 11 process generally.
We also have serious concerns regarding the conduct of the “clause 11” formal disciplinary proceedings by crew management. If you are asked to report back to the Company regarding any incident, please do not hesitate to contact the Association for advice. You may be giving a manager just an update regarding a flight. Or you may potentially be an important witness to an event that could have major impacts on a crew member – the disciplinary outcome could cost them their job. Never sign a document without reading it carefully and fully agreeing with the content – you will have no control over where this document goes or how it will be used. Don’t just sign it as you are about to sign on or off. Think about the implications of your actions.
Even if the incident involves a member of the Association (as they mostly do), you can seek confidential advice from the Association. The Association uses the practice of “Chinese walls” where individual members can seek confidential advice from another official, even though the Association may be representing other individuals involved in the same incident. The advice given will best represent your interests.