"Jetscar" rosters for domestic are based on 30/31 days with 10 days off.

International as far as I know are based on 28 days with 8 days off. No days off in out ports all in home base.

:)

Hello,

What I meant about no days off in out ports is that rumor has it that the company looked at using slip days as off days while on trips.

Don't know anything about o/seas conditions. Heard not that good though.

I'm not sure but I heard a rumour that a middle eastern airline is trying that with the pilots.So if your trip has a day off in Singapore that counts towards your days off per roster.

That'd be beaut wouldn't it.

If Aus J* int crew hours are up to 152 per roster then maybe the thai crew for J* int may be more.

If we say they do 28 days take away 8 days min rest then make it 2 rosters to make it the same as us.that makes it 40 days flying per same roster as us. That makes it 10 hours a day if they are supposed to do 400 hours .

I admit this sounds high but if J* made the Thai crew count the slip ports as days off..nahh that is still too much.tYou'd have to have into account hols,etc and they would never stay at home. Even at 152 hours or 204 in a 56 day roster that still means 7.6 per day..Not happy Jan

Hark..forsooth
 

Methinks I hear the patter of Tightslot`s delicate feet.:hmm:
...and Twiggs deletes her paranoid post

Anybody like to make a prediction as to what the wage and employment package will be for QF long haul cabin crew, subsequent to the expiration of any new EBA agreed to under the present government's industrial relations regime?

Bear in mind that any new EBA agreed to now, can be unilaterally terminated by an employer with 90 days notice after its date of expiry, and also remember, that when this happens, the employer is then only legally obliged to provide the following: 10 days per annum sick leave, 12 months unpaid maternity leave, 4 weeks per annum annual leave, 38 hours per week work averaged out over 12 months, and a minimum wage of $13.47 per hour. Nothing more than this, nothing.

So what do reckon QF would do??

I reckon with the industrial negotiation tactic of waving a white flag the result will not be pretty.If the takeout ,I mean takeover happens then the same tactic will mean most of us will be applying for either a major supermarket chain or an overseas airline.

The rumor is that MM is offering 20 hours extra a roster with no tradeoffs as long as they sign an 3 year eba now instead of next year.Will it work who knows

Its Academic
 

If the buy out gets up all bets will be off.

should know
 

within the next two weeks if the buyout is on. at this stage it looks like its going ahead however heavy negotiations on the politicial fimpact are still ongoing. as you can imagine little jonny couldn't care less, however in an election year he is going to be very careful.:=
jaded boiler, as far as i understand it the company CANNOT unilaterally terminate an expired eba after 90 days. also your doom scenario of minimum conditions aren't quite right. let the faa guys here comment on it.:rolleyes:

Qcc2, I can assure you, that 90 days after the expiration of any EBA that has been agreed to AFTER the new IR laws took effect last March, it can be unilaterally terminated, with your employer then only legally having to comply with the five minimum conditions stated above.

Be very wary of signing up to anything, pay rise or not. Be aware of what you are exposing yourself to.

The rates of pay and conditions of any EBA that was signed up to PRIOR to the laws changing last March remain perpetually effective after its expiry, provided no new EBA is agreed to.

Consider this scenario: sign up for new EBA for 3 years, company includes possible sweetener of, say, 1% pay rise annually. 3 years hence, EBA expires, 90 days notice is given that it is being terminated. QF then give 90 days to sign up to an AWA with a total salary package of, say, $35 000 per annum, with a caveat that if this is not agreed to in the 90 day time frame, the salary on offer will then be $26 700 (federally mandated minimum wage). Instant saving for the company of roughly $14 million per annum in wage bills for long haul cabin crew alone.

Think they haven't thought about this? Why so keen to discuss EBAs all of a sudden? Anything to do with interest by private equity, who ruthlessly use every legal means available to them to slash costs, then sell the husk of the company that remains for a profit typically in a 5 to 6 year time frame.

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
 

"The rates of pay and conditions of any EBA that was signed up to PRIOR to the laws changing last March remain perpetually effective after its expiry, provided no new EBA is agreed to." ...Jaded boiler


Essentially this is correct..except that when a Pre reform EBA expires the Company can apply to terminate an EBA and the commission after applying a public interest test must terminate it.

The current LH EBA is a pre reform EBA and there fore subject to that.

New EBA's signed post the march 06 changes reequire 90 days notice for termination and the commission must also terminate the agreement.

If the Company decides to utilise workchoices and not have another EBA with LH crew, then after 15dec 2007 they can apply to the AIRC for termination. We as long Haul crew would then fall to the "award" that sits there still but is vastly reduced in salary and reduced to a few allowable matters.

Almost every application by employers to terminate EBA's in 2006 were succesful in their entirity.

These are very dangerous times. Those that are repeating what they are being told be the uninformed have potential to do serious damage if misnomers are accepted as fact.

For those 800 flight attendants that attended the FAAA briefing should understand these issues. I think that the LH flight attendants should be seriously worried about not getting another EBA.

I certainly hope that a new EBA can be negotiated that provides , on going job security, promotion, growth for the LH division, the current redundancy conditions and protection of core conditions.

Unless that is achieved then i believe that Individual contracts in the form of AWA's will be what is headed our way.

The next election will be about the sort of AUstralia we want to live in and hand to the next generation. I say..."DONT LET JOHN HOWARD AND WORKCHOICES THROW YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN OVERBOARD"

The interesting part of the last post is that there is a chance that if a new eba is signed then because that was drafted after the new industrial laws it is vulnerable to being squashed.

So if we do nothing and wait until our current eba finishes we then have to do something anyway.So at best we wait 12 months but then we are back to square one.It seems that we should get some heavy weight legal advice here.

I reckon it is time to pay a few dollars each and get the big guns in the form of a qc to understand where we stand and what our best move is.

If there is any legal possibility of the new owners doing this they will because money is the bottom line to them as that is why they are buying us not because they like qf.

As there is an election next year the company will probably not want to do anything that would jeopardize the Libs so we should use that to our advantage as well.

What Pegasus is saying is essentially true but as he just repeated what jaded boiler said and that is if we sign a new eba which is post march last year then the company or whoever owns it can ask the commission to squash it.

It is not any good just to go on and on and on about throwing out Howard we must accept the possibility of him winning and act accordingly

Pegasus if we fall back to our award and how can we have a vastly reduced pay.If we are based on our award then we are on our award

So signing a new eba is no guarantee of safety either because as you said it can be removed so how is that going to give us security or promotion or anything.What is the advantage of a new eba when it can bve removed when our current eba is pre- new ir laws

We must get decent legal advice and not just from our usual source

airport security
 

on something else just to lighten it up a bit.Here is a post from another thread on airport screening.


A while ago on this forum, someone suggested that the baddies could hold the pilots family hostage and force him/her to take something onto the aircraft. Thats why pilots have to be screened.

:confused:

That is the sort of moronic, illogical suff we are up against here. And the trouble is, it seems the gov has basically given security carte-blanch to do what ever they want. Say the wrong thing, like " I allready HAVE control of the aircraft buddy" to a security guy, and you could find yourself in serious hot water.


I wonder who could have said the bit about pilots families being taken hostage.

to Roaming Wolf and anyone else interested.


Can i suggest that these issues are very complex and took the FAAA at least 3 hours to cover at their recent meetings.

The FAAA took legal advice from to industrial lawyers and then had that advice checked by Jim Nolan an industrial barrister from the denman chambers in sydney. For those that do not know,Jim Nolan is used by the pilots as well as most major unions for expert industrial legal advice.

The FAAA strategy has largely been adopted following extensive consultation and legal advice. I suggest that anyone that wants a detailed explanation call Michael Mijatov personally in the FAAA office. He will be happy to take any call at any time from members to ensure they are appropriately educated and provided with correct information. He said this publicly at the recent faaa meetings

The FAAA number is 8337 1111

Call the office and ask for MM. If you dont understand the complexity of the legal arguments he will explain it to you in simple terms as he has done at all the meetings.

Much of what is said in here is totally incorrect. The FAAA has taken expert legal advice and employs two lawyers as Industrial Officers. The FAAA will not leave any stone unturned in order to make sure it is acting in accordance with the LAW and advice from experts.

Interesting comments and debate about a new EBA and QF buyout qcc2, jaded boiler, peg747 and the roaming wolf. I smell a rat or maybe a MMMouse.

new eba ,trouble or benefit
 

I have to agree with Schlonghaul,

I reckon we have 2 options.

1: we keep our current eba and if the company wants to dismantle it the commissioner has to make a test case and it has to be successful and more than likely we stay on our award..

2: We go along the faaa preferred option which is to negotiate a new eba which Pegasus747 has admitted can be dismantled with only 90 days notice and no test case involved.

So can someone tell me the advantage of going for a new eba which is not worth the paper it is written on.

What is the rush especially when whoever owns or runs the company can apply to the commission to have the new eba null and void with only 90 days notice and not one thing we can do about it

Faaa Newsletter
 

8 December 2006 ID72-06
Attention all Qantas Long Haul and Australian Airlines Flight Attendants
FAAA INTERNATIONAL DIVISION PUTS FORWARD PLAN FOR FAAA INTEGRATION
I wish to advise members that the International Division yesterday formally responded to the Domestic/Regional Division with a plan to form the basis for integration of the current two Divisions of the FAAA.
I take this opportunity to publicly inform our membership that in late 2003, I (Michael Mijatov) initiated confidential discussions between senior officials of the International Division and our senior counterparts in the Domestic/Regional Division of the FAAA.
Once I became the Secretary of the International Division in March 2004, the discussions had the formal imprimatur of this Division and it has been the policy of this Division to attempt to reverse the Divisionalisation of the FAAA that occurred in 2000.
It is self evident that an integrated FAAA structure would have benefits for all FAAA members both in industrial terms and in terms of a more effective, efficient and more financially secure FAAA.
However, I above all current elected officials in both Divisions of the FAAA witnessed the debilitating instability, arguments and resentment that ultimately caused the de-facto split of the FAAA in 2000.
Therefore, we in this Division of the FAAA, believe that it is both prudent and essential that certain matters have to be agreed to, before there can be a full “union” between the two FAAA Divisions. The most important of these are as follows:-
1) The FAAA must be structured in a way that the legitimate interests of members in each airline grouping are acknowledged in the Rules of the FAAA.
2) Industrial decisions made by each airline grouping must not be able to be thwarted, blocked or overridden by a coalition of officials from other airline groupings.
3) Election to and voting on, elective bodies in the FAAA must be on the basis of proportional representation (for example it would be unacceptable that almost 3000 Qantas Long Haul members have the same representation on a newly constituted FAAA as would another group of flight attendants with say 600 members).
Many of these issues are complex, but must be properly addressed, to ensure that if we do restructure the FAAA, we do it on a proper basis, to prevent the chaos of pre- 2000 recurring.
We have also indicated to the Domestic/Regional Division that if full re-integration is not possible we are keen to adopt a whole raft of other practical measures which would have the effect of closer industrial co-ordination. We also indicated that sharing of premises would also be possible as far as our Division is concerned, even if full integration is not practical or possible.
We will advise you of developments in due course.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division.
20 Ewan Street Mascot NSW 2020 Tel 61 2 8337 1111 Fax 61 2 8337 1122 Emergency Contact 0414 894 192

roamingwolf's comments
 

Pegasus747 is correct...... issues such as termination of EBA's are fairly complex.

Clearly, roamingwolf did not go the any of the 21 FAAA meetings that were recently held.


If he had, he would have understood the issues that he now raises.

A suggestion to roamingwolf and any others who didnt take the time to go to the FAAA meetings...... rather than making wrong and uninformed comment on here..... ring the FAAA and get the correct information.

It is amusing that we have these bush lawyers on here who understand very little of the complexities of the new IR laws, yet cannot help themselves in making incorrect comments.

All the matters that roamingwolf raises were comprehensively dealt with at the FAAA meetings...... next time roamingwolf go to a meeting and you will be informed.

In the interim, a suggestion,, don't comment on matters you obviously know nothing about. You will simply confuse and mislead others in the same manner that you are confused.

HELP
 

Hi All

I am so sorry probably someone has already asked these questions before but i cannot find the answers.

I applied for Qantas Cabin Crew position about 15 days ago, someone called me and i had an interview on the phone lasting aprox 15 min, the guy left me his phone number and asked me to call him on Monday and he will let me know if i have passed. Could someone tell me is this common practice or do you think that this is good or bad news.

If i passed the phone interview, i was told that i would have to go to some hotel near LHR for an assement, does anyone know what questions they tent to ask at the test ect.

Many thanks!!!!!

HELP
 

Hi All

I am so sorry probably someone has already asked these questions before but i cannot find the answers.

I applied for Qantas Cabin Crew position about 15 days ago, someone called me and i had an interview on the phone lasting aprox 15 min, the guy left me his phone number and asked me to call him on Monday and he will let me know if i have passed. Could someone tell me is this common practice or do you think that this is good or bad news.

If i passed the phone interview, i was told that i would have to go to some hotel near LHR for an assement, does anyone know what questions they tent to ask at the test ect.

Many thanks!!!!!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

b77 this is the Qantas Australia thread. You might want to post this question in the Qantas UK thread, i assume you are talking about the London phone interviews. You will find more information on there.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.:*

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!

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 .

I second that.

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.:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

I second that

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

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

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.

Here here!

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.

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.

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