FAAA (merged)

[qfcsm]

Well, well, well.... Who has been paid off!

The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.

What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!

The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?

Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".

To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????

[Chicken or Fish?]

Looks like the FAAA have done "some sort of a deal". Comments about that will follow, however NO strike over Xmas. I hope all those boys and girls who accepted very short term contracts lately left the door open at their previous workplace. They are going to need it thanks to good old QF Mgmt.



Qantas averts holiday strike by cabin crew
By Scott Rochfort
November 3, 2004


Qantas averted threatened Christmas holiday strike action by its 4000 long-haul flight attendants yesterday after agreeing to limit the number of cabin crew it bases overseas.

Both the airline and the Flight Attendants Association of Australia claimed victory yesterday over the agreement, which will allow Qantas to push ahead with its plans to set up a 400-strong crew base in London next June.

Under the deal Qantas will be allowed to lift the cap of foreign-based crews from 370 to 870, allowing the airline to also bolster the number of crews at its current Bangkok and Auckland bases.

The head of the union's long-haul division, Michael Mijatov, said: "The general public can be very confident there will be no industrial action."

Under the in-principle agreement over the union's new enterprise agreement with Qantas, Mr Mijatov also claimed victory over Qantas's guarantees to give Australian long-haul crews at least one daily service to London and a 9 per cent pay rise over three years.

Under the deal, the airline said it would still achieve its original aim of saving $18 million a year from the London base by cutting hotel bills, meal allowances and through rostering efficiencies.

However, QANTAS only made passing reference to the 357 cabin crew it has recently hired on three-month contracts as possilbe strike-breakers. The airline has the freedom to terminate the 357 fixed-term contractors with four weeks' severance pay.

Qantas also has the freedom not to renew the contracts of another 150 cabin crew it has on 11-month contracts when its London base is operational next June.

:ooh: :ooh:

[qfcsm]

Well, well, well.... Who has been paid off!

The sellout sisters have delivered an astonishing blow to QF long haul cabin crew. Not only have they now ALLOWED the LHR base to go ahead but they have accepted a measly 3% per annum pay increase for it.

What the hell is going on when execs and directors can pick up 66% pay rises for slash and burn tactics at the coalface and the most affected party gets 3%. Shame on you!

The union finally had the upper hand. Had QF suffering through the hip pocket. Christmas bookings were hurting and what did the union do? Did a crap deal that's what. But wait there's more, crew get a free ticket to London as compensation for loosing all but one a day trips to LHR. What about the overtime and allowances I will loose? What about the 3% we gave up during the pay freeze?

Well that's the last subscription the union will get from me. They have sold us out. All that rhetoric about stopping the base from going ahead and "we will not give in this time".

To the union officials: You got elected to office for claims you would be strong. well I reckon someone has paid you off - how much was our sacrifice worth......?????

[galleyoperator]

Does anyone else feel the FAAA 'In Principal' proposal with Qantas smells like a dead fish?

I am dumb struck............and I'm totally angered at the FAAA leadership.

I was one of the many who attended the union meetings. I walked away encouraged by our solidarity, our strength in numbers and our belief in our common cause; all the galley talk was the same everywhere you flew, we've had enough! We are all willing to take this fight to Qantas and stop the rot on our working conditions. We have scarificed so much to help achieve "record" profits "YEAR on YEAR", I am tired of being kicked in the teeth by Qantas management.

So what does the FAAA leadership do?

* They accept an in principal agreement 3% pay rise for each year for 3 years, have they not seen the CPI? Have they forgotten the 66% management payrise!

Has everyone forgotten the sacrifices we have all made to make this company succeed in the worst possible travel environment? (9/11, SARS, Bali Bombing etc, etc)

* They have also accepted in principle one (1), 1 flight of the 7 per day, to access London. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING......? What a F*#@ing joke.

This deal smell's so foul, i want to vomit!

I want job security; I want security in my earning ability. I don't want a hand out, they can shove that bloody free trip to London offered to each crew member up their proverbial's! What the......??? Are they cost cutting?

The London base will literally mean a 15-20% pay cut to hundreds if not thousands of flight attendants. Qantas Management just awarded themseleves "a 66% Pay Rise for god's sake"

Lets rally every sensible QF flight attendant to read this proposal very carefully and see it for what it is, a dead fish! I ask that we all Vote "AGAINST" this proposal, and lets "FORCE" the FAAA leadership to go back and work for what they were all elected to do.

The FAAA have "talked the talk, but they have not walked the walk" Lets force the FAAA leadership to go back and do their job.

We voted these people in to fight the hard fight, and improve our job security.... what they have delivered (so quickly i must add) was a package that suits only the elite and eternally senior flight attendant (seniority) in the Qantas scheme of things.

I am angered and I feel let me down, I am sure thousands of other flight attendants feel the same.

TO ALL QF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, VOTE "NO" TO THIS ABSOLUTE JOKE OF A PROPOSAL.

From one very upset galley opertator. :mad: :mad:

[str]

Its disgraceful, the company must be laughing at us now.

I will definately vote NO. We must start a campain against this crap EBA ASAP.

[ditzyboy]

FAAA International has just proven themselves as valuable to its membership as Domestic/Regional is to anyone who isn't Short Haul. :hmm:

Domestic/Regional has its own 'Sellout Sisters'. And I have a feeling the conditions we 'enjoy' at JQ now will be seen as a holiday come EBA 3. :(

The FAAA is fast losing relevance to the majority of its membership. Good to see International Division keeping up with Domestic/Regional.

[surfside6]

In EBA6 we voted to amongst other things to lift the cap on overseas bases.This was legally binding.Under the circumstances I would say,not a bad deal.I don`t think "thousands" of crew will be financially disadvantaged.I know I won`t be and i go to LHR all the time..and not out of choice.

[Ascent]

will be interesting to see what access you guys get to the 330.

[peanut pusher]

This is not a bad deal, it's not great but it's ok.
Galley op put your name forward for election next time and show us your stuff.
90% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.
The LHR base is going ahead if we like it or not, we must control 747 & A380 flying they will be the keys to long haul flights. A share of a330 will do us fine, S/haul are already struggling with the product. Should of been with them out of HKG on the weekend, product delivery was not good and not one PA in Madarin & Cantonise for the wonderful a330 entertainment system failing for the first 3 hrs.
Don't hold out on things we will never be able to get.
Yes we got a cap on o/s and many other things.

[peanut pusher]

66% was collective across the whole board and not per person as widely reported by media. Cooper & Lybrand undervalued the executive board wages and compaired them to other companys like GMH,Ford & Telstra etc.
Ford CEO gets 16 million a year with his share options, dicko was actually way of the pace compaired to his peers.

Not a company man but just want to "Keep it real"
Incorrect facts are very damaging to real debate

[Mr Seatback 2]

I don't pretend to be an expert on Long Haul, or on EBA 6, but I would have thought the deal was at least a better alternative than using the strike breakers.

Thinking out loud, wouldn't the following have happened had this deal not been reached in principle?:
* The crew (and not all the crew I might add) would have gone on strike at the prepared date;
* In their place, the strike breakers would have operated (357 at last count...and growing had the deal not been reached);
* The planned flight disruption would be minimal (if any); and
* In the event crew went on strike out of home base (eg. NRT), these strike breaking crew would have been positioned in advance to cover planned action - thereby further minimising any disruption.

This, coupled with the fact that not all Long Haul crew agreed with industrial action (eg. those going to LHR), would always mean that the purpose of industrial action (ie. having your actions speak for you) would be minimal given the amount of planning and spending QF have outlayed for the purposes of thwarting any 'point' being made by the crew.

Don't get me wrong - I'm the last person to defend QF. Their behaviour throughout this whole episode has been nothing short of appalling - in the way they've treated the crew, tried to divide them, and even in their dealings with the strike-breaking crew (some of whom had no idea what they were getting themselves in for until it was too late).

Without wanting to start/continue WW3, the argument re: loss of earning potential is POINTLESS! The AIRC would not, under any circumstances, wear an argument from the FAAA re: loss of earnings from allowances, when these same allowances are provided for the purposes of purchasing meals downroute. Given that these allowances are not provided for the purposes of building an income (just ask the ATO), I'd advise from my own experience not to go down that road.

The previous EBA, as has been mentioned previously, provided for an expansion of the overseas cap anyway - if it can be set for the life of the Agreement (rather than as an independent industrial agreement, as it stands now), does this not provide security in the form of guaranteed jobs? After all, wasn't part of the whole LHR argument based on the fact that no commitment was being given from QF regarding the possibility of redundancies flowing from the establishment of LHR base? Has this not been averted now an actual cap has been set overall across all overseas bases?

Just a few questions, and thoughts, from an interested observer.

PS. You are right though about the 3% p/a. I'd be getting that changed ASAP too if I were in your position.

[peanut pusher]

Put your perposal and how you can achieve it on this site. 90% of something is ok, 100% of nothing is really bad.

[Arm_Doors]

I think its probably the best we're going to get....

3%, whilst no where near the increase the board gave themselves, is pretty much the national standard unfortunately.....

I thought it was interesting that the review of the seniority system has been removed..... I'm guessing the FAAA reps are fairly senior!

[qfcsm]

I think some of you are missing the point.

1. How much did the union officials get paid off to accept this garbage deal?

2. Why did they back down after they won a nasty, bitter election campaign fought on the premise of "being strong"?

3. Is it the best deal? Already QF is saying they are talking to the ASU about upping the 3% offer to their members dur to strike threats - I say go back and get more you gooses!

4. If you think the QF win in this is just the $18M for accommodation and allowances you live under a rock! If you think QF cabin crew won't be worst off you also live under a rock! The reality is that QF will clean up on this deal.
Think about these facts:
- a reduction in long range duties of at least 40 sectors per week x 15 crew (around $200,000 per week)
- LHR base crew can work up to 240 hours which is 40-50 more than Aust based crew and for a salary = $$$$????

The fact remains that QF were hurting in the hip pocket and the FAAA had probably the best chance in history of securing a good deal. We're not asking for miracles but a reasonably return on the pain and suffering and chipping away of conditions we have put up with the last few years to keep QF afloat. And to add insult to injury is the fact that QF STILL claim we are struggling in a volitile market and that staff can be proud of their achievements and have 3% per annum (barely covers CPI) while the executive fatcats lick at the cream.

To crew I say get out from under the rock and bash on the FAAA door and demand answers and a better deal.

To the FAAA I say give back the cash and get down to business.

[str]

I've told the FAAA I will be voting NO and then withdrawing my membership.

We get nothing out of this. Wonder what the FAAA got? They just purchased property in Mascot so maybe cash came in handy?

[GalleyHag]

Have you guys spoken to the FAAA, what do they say? Why the backdown from their strong stance?

[galley_gossiper]

It is a bit of an odd turn of events.

The FAAA execs have gone from "strike,strike,strike" to "deal,deal,deal" very quickly.

Personally, I think maybe they didnt think they had the support for a sustained industrial dispute. Or maybe the strike-breaking force was getting a bit too large. Who knows?

Reading the letter of understanding, the only positives I can see are that QF have said that we will retain a minimum of 30% of all international Operations on the A330 and 767 ... that is a good deal (considering the amount of A330 international sectors we are operating at the moment !)

But the rest is a bit bland.

Whats the free ticket to LHR about? You cant get to LHR on staff travel anyway! But I do agree with being able to change staff travel buddies every six months (although not an EBA issue, and one all staff will benefit from ... not just us).


methinks it will get voted up.

[surfside6]

How can anyone consider this a backdown?Further foreign bases (eg LAX)have been prevented,we still have access to LHR,maintain access to A330 what else do you want.....flowers with every payslip?

[Arm_Doors]

Bear in mind that its only Sydney crews that do the London trips anyway. It doesn't seem to be a bad deal for the other bases.

I noted with some interest however that this deal is very senior friendly: No review of the seniority system and trips to LHR are likely be senior trips now.

But I'm voting yes - as PP said, better to get 90% of a reasonable deal than 100% of sweet FA (and I don't mean flight attendant).

[Mr Seatback 2]

str

You do get something out of this:
* Guaranteed flying on A380 (not previously agreed to) - and given the allotment of A330 flying to Short Haul, don't think QF wouldn't have given A380 to someone else who does it cheaper!;
* Fixed cap of 870 for life of EBA (not as a separate document, like the current one was that created the mess you found yourselves in);
* No LAX base as a result of above (you want to talk lost allowances and long sector pay qfcsm? Let's talk what you could have potentially lost had THIS base gone through as well);
* No redundancies (a commitment that was never able to be provided prior to this agreement); and
* LHR flying maintained at 1 a day (as opposed to none, which was the case before)

Fact is, LHR would have gone through ANYWAY. Another fact is that it's going through with at least some fences protecting jobs and flying for Australian crew is something better than nothing (which is what you had before). That, and the fact you don't have the strike breaking crew destroying what fractured position the Long Haul crew were holding prior to this agreement.

Is it perfect? No of course not. BUT WHAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE?

Fact is - NO MATTER what agreement was reached, you would NEVER get EVERYBODY 100% happy with the outcome. Bargaining and negotiating means give and take from both sides. QF didn't have to guarantee any LHR flying for Australian crew. Nor did they have to do a lot of what was agreed to. And neither does the FAAA - but an agreement was reached and in short much was achieved.

I would also be VERY careful, as has been said in this and other threads, of throwing around the whole 'QF paying off the FAAA' argument. If anyone feels the FAAA and QF have participated in any form of corrupt behaviour, then it is your duty as a MEMBER to report it to ICAC.

surfside 6 - loved the flowers with payslips comment. Just beautiful.

PS. I'm no FAAA official, but I recognise a decent agreement when I see one.

[peanut pusher]

Just one fact for all to consider before they bash the FAAA over the head again.
Both sides spent 6 hours with an industrial judge to come to the agreement. The commisioner clearly gave the FAAA direction that this was what the industrial relations commision would rule if it got to the war all were expecting.
FAAA got about 70% of what they wanted and actual won the day.

[peanut pusher]

Just one fact for all to consider before they bash the FAAA over the head again.
Both sides spent 6 hours with an industrial judge to come to the agreement. The commisioner clearly gave the FAAA direction that this was what the industrial relations commision would rule if it got to the war all were expecting.
FAAA got about 70% of what they wanted and actual won the day.

[qfcsm]

Mr Backseat 2 and others,

Can you please explain to one and all what happened - you clearly seam to think you know it all!

The FAAA go to the commission on a fight over the LHR base and come out with an endorsed EBA package - WHAT HAPPENED!!!!

That's all we want to know.......It appears from the outside that some kind of shonky deal was pulled while the doors were closed at the commission.

Why didn't the FAAA came back and say "hey we're not sure everyone is on side with industrial action, so let's stich up a deal". Simple stuff and it's called COMMUNICATION!

And to say it's a good deal - give me a break. It smells and smells bad.

Do you recall what caused the division in the FAAA International branch a little while ago? Huh, do you?
It was that a couple of the officials believed the industrial action was better than negotiating. I'm not suggesting industrial action is the answer but it seemed to be having the right effect.

Also do you remember a certain individual saying he would never run for FAAA office again? Huh, do you?
Well he is the very same person who wrote to crew informing them of this insignificant outcome the other day.

Get real people. Can you not see what is happening? Your conditions are slowly being eroded away from all fronts and your FAAA representatives are pushing the gas pedal.

Wake up, smell the stench, and go say something to these sellout sisters...!

[mach2male]

Well that makes THREE of you who aren`t happy.Go to LHR a lot do we?Well you will still be able to go to THE CHURCH on Sunday.The LHR base was agreed to in EBA6(by voting to remove the cap)If you are annoyed take it out on the previous executive.Mitjatov et al have saved us from having a LAX base and wages have a 3% compounded sweetener.LHR trips have always been relatively undesirable by most crew...so whats the big deal?

[Mr Seatback 2]

qfcsm

Quit being emotional. It dilutes the argument you're trying to make.

I've never said I knew it all, or that I was an expert on this matter here or on any other thread. Conversely, with the exception of your rhetoric, you don't know a great deal either. Nor do you consider the bigger picture.

Mach2male said it perfectly...much of what has recently occurred has resulted in LOOPHOLES that were ripe for the exploiting from the last EBA 6. Simple.

As I also recall, the current FAAA executive have stated more than a few times that much of their problem in fighting QF was that such loopholes (ie. increase in overseas cap) existed, created by previous FAAA officials - and QF knew that!

It was going to happen anyway - industrial action or not.

[qfcsm]

Whatever.....!

Let me say I am LUCKY to get the occasional LHR. Most of my trips are Jobergs! I have only heard of the church in LHR. Never been there.

The secretary of the FAAA has an economics degree. I challenge him to say that Australian based crew will not be financially worse off for this deal. If he does the calculations honestly and communicates them to crew and they are vastly different to these than I will back off.

Until then let me give you some facts....

The 3% will give you at best an additional $3000 per annum (if you earn a base pay of $100,000 and who does). That's $9,000 over 3 years and let's be generous and say $12,000 with compounding. Remember that is based on a $100,000 base!

The conservative estimates on gross reduction per average crew member is around $12,000 per annum (Loss of: long range, ODTA, SDTA, allowances, etc). Over 3 years that's $36,000.
BTW crew in the top 10% of seniority within category will not be affected by this as they can still get their long range etc with LAX.

So how does a $12,000 increase less a $36,000 loss add up to a good deal! Maths say that equals a $24,000 loss over 3 years.

I am trying to stay un-emotive but for some reason some individuals cannot see the big picture.

And consider this: LHR is not the end. It will be VERY soon that long haul crew are a thing of the past.

This deal also delivers a potential 65% of 767 and A330 international flying to short haul - WHY? Because they are cheaper...
[New 767/A330 divisional flying deal: 35% long haul, 25% short haul, 40% to QF]

Watch out long haul, you are being made extinct!!

Further...

I can only guess the LOOPHOLES referred to as being the dropping of clauses from previous EBAs in relation to "Roster Review\' and \'Pay Equalisation\'.

Let me quote directly from the EBA VI:

CLAUSE 18 REVIEW OF ROSTER SYSTEM
18.1 During the term of this EBA Qantas and the FAAA will undertake a fundamental review of how flying is allocated to crew. The objectives of the review will include but not be limited to:
· A fairer share of flying between crew,
· Improved roster sociability and stability,
· A reduction in costs,
· A reduction in demand days,
· An overall improvement in roster efficiency, and
· Implementation of a trip swap system.
18.2 The timetable for this review will be as follows:
· Qantas will table a draft proposal by 1 October 2003,
· A joint Qantas FAAA working party will then be convened to
complete its deliberations by 1 February 2004, including
negotiations on changes to the certified agreement.

CLAUSE 22 RESERVE LINE ROTATION AND PAY EQUALISATION
During the term of this EBA the parties will review options to reduce the frequency of reserve line rotation, with the objective of returning reserve line rotation to or below one bid period in ten.
The timetable for this review will be as follows:
· the parties will complete the review by 1 September 2003
· Agreed changes will be implemented by 1 November 2003.


LET ME MAKE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THE FIRST PRESCRIPTION IN BOTH THESE CLAUSES SAYS:
"DURING THE TERM OF THIS EBA..."
That means that at the conclusion of the prescribed term (17 December 2004) these clauses are DEAD, GONE, FINISHED!

Phew, sorry I am getting emotive again... So the FAAA achieved NOTHING in having them removed but these things are highlighted in their newsletter to crew as being milestone gains.

Simply said, crew please look at what is being offered and don\'t just take it as being "the best deal". It is not!

[Pegasus747]

Cut the crap QfCSM

you are obviously one of the idoiots that crew voted off the previous union.

The Cap of 370 expires on 17 dec 2004. That means after that qantas can have unlimited crew overseas and unlimited bases. This deal appears to give a cap that includes london bangkok and auckland. we havent gone from 370 to 870 we have gone from unlimited to a cap.

As far as the income losses you think you will suffer think about what your income would be if they set up a base in LA and JNB and gave the remaining work to short haul we would just shrink we would dissappear.

Unless there is some hidden trap like a product clause then this will get my vote and the union my thanks. These guys started only this year and we have never had better communication in the 20 yrs i have been flying.

And the 3 year deal will get us over the proposed legislation and see out dixon and the black widow. If crew vote this deal down then if i were dixon i would be delighted. I would open bases everywhere and the public would say go ahead flight attendants are idiots after what they have been offered in this deal.

Get into the real world. Ask someone else in Qantas what they are getting

[mach2male]

Pegasus 747 has nailed it.As far QFCSM is concerned his/her emotion is clouding the issues.My renumeration is satisfactory.We have all become too destination focused.I don`t care where I go and on what aircraft .I am very happy with the outcome.QFCSM if your lifestyle is unsatisfactory drop back and stop complaining

[qfcsm]

That's how you feel and good luck to you.
No doubt the deal will get up as it has done previously.

Hope you remember your actions in the next couple of years when you look at your group certificate and wonder why your gross is so low.

As I said good luck.... you'll need it!

[galley_gossiper]

Well, I cant say I agree with everything in the proposed EBA .... but will be voting for it.
London was always going ahead, when the FAAA were on their "lets strike to stop london" phase, everyone knew it could not be won.
Yes there will be some losses of $$$$ for those who do LHR regularly.
.But you only strike when you have nothing to lose --- we had everything to lose. Being locked out, more overseas bases, shorthaul taking all A330/767 flying --- the company could have had their dream come true Get rid of the Long Haul Division!!!!.
Not a great outcome, but we dont lose conditions, only a destination, and unfortunately the benefits that go with that destination. I dont agree however with the 'language f/a's 'clause, that will stop a lot of us (non mand/cantonese speakers) bidding for future mainland china destinations.
I personally think that if we went on strike to stop the inevitable, Qf would have gotten rid of us.

[str]

galley gossiper -

Do you know the meaning of PROTECTED industrial action?

I suggest you read the AIRC defintion before spouting off that QF could get rid of long haul:

AIRC

The web site of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) contains some helpful questions and answers.

The OEA notes that under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, employees have only a limited right to take industrial action.

Can employees ever lawfully take industrial action?

Yes, but only when it fits all of these rules:

• it happens during a properly notified bargaining period (which starts seven days after one party notifies the other and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that it intends to seek to reach a certified agreement);
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement before the action is taken; and
• the employer gets 3 (three) working days’ written notice of the proposed industrial action.

This is called "protected" industrial action.

If an employer is bargaining with employees and unable to reach agreement, the employer can apply to the AIRC to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. If the employer is successful, that puts an end to the protected status of the industrial action. In making its decision the AIRC will consider whether the employer has been trying to seek agreement in good faith.

What action can an employer take during a bargaining period

An employer can lock out its workers and stop them from working if:

• the lockout occurs during a properly notified bargaining period;
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement;and
• the employer gives written notice to each party with whom it is negotiating – so if there is more than one union involved the employer must give the notice to each union – that it will be locking the gate/telling them to go home.

The employer must give 3 clear working days notice unless the lock out is in response to the union/s industrial action.

Can an employer sack employees who take industrial action?

It is against the law for employers to dismiss an employee if they are taking protected industrial action.

An employer must still follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action. There is no short cut just because they may have broken the law.

Does an employer have to pay its employees when they take industrial action?

It is against the law to :

• pay any employee who has taken industrial action;
• do a deal whereby they get paid for work they haven’t done;
• agree to pay them as part of settling a dispute; and
• for an employee to accept payment for industrial action

What is industrial action?

It’s when employees do something which restricts, limits or delays their work, such as imposing go-slows or work to rule bans –not only when they walk off the job.



NO vote from me

[bunkmaster]

agree with str. if protected legal action is taken they cant sack the entire longhaul crew. even if they had a 1000 scabs on standby they couldn't replace 3900 crew that easily. bookings are down by around 30% because of all the negative publicity. and having spoken myself to a few travel agents who have a reasonable picture about the situation there feedback was book on anyone but QF.not just because of the industrial side but also their commissions have been cut and they dont agree they way dixon runs the business. they all call them pretty arrogant these days.
as for loosing a destination and a little money there is a lot more to it. no redundencie clause is in this EBa, so another major incident and who do you guys think they want to get rid of first. not difficult to answer. also there will be no longer promotional opportunities for aussie based crew. remember LG made it already clear she not only wants to promote in london but also in auckland. so either some of the AKL-LAx or a number of shark patrols are going soon as well. cant see any promotion on the horizon for aussie based crew.
the divisional flying agreement means not much. Qf management can still give shorthaul all the regional flying and longhaul domestic extensions. to have this done through the IC is actually in my opinion a step backward as with all the IR changes on the way its going to be very simple. if QF does not get what they want they will hand us again the short stick. this also includes any new aircraft. by the time the A380 comes maybe 3 in service the EBA is finished. as you may have seen in the papers QF will shortly annouce new orders for either the A340-500/600 or the 777 long range as replacement for the 747 . no guarantee we get that one either. and as guaranteed 747 flying longhaul crewed this ac since 1970 so the whole guarantee is a farce.
and as always wait for the details in the fine print. cant wait

[bunkmaster]

finally more details are available in regard to the eba vii. the only good thing i can see is that all future csm/css (apart from the lhr base) will be aussie based selected crew.what i dont like is the exchange of letter, reminds me of the divisional flying agreement. i like the guaranteed minimum lhr flights from 27 to 7 a week. also the "shared compulsory redundancies" whatever that means in real life. who goes first, junior , senior or the lucky dice.mhmhmm. have to read the fine print if there is one.they still try to make the cap of 870 sound a riveting achievment.sad really after all their war cries.

do have to slap myself for providing wrong info on my last thread. by the end of the next eba will have 6 A380 in the air.

[Bodum]

Its been said all before I know but let me repeat it.

No body is ever going to be 100% happy with what is offered. This is the best outcome, for protecting most of what you already have. I can think of at least 2 other departments in the company currently negotiating EBAs and they certainly havent been offered any sweeteners, like free tickets and ability to change travel companion every 6 months..The FAAA has served you well here as well as with everything else they protected and achieved for you.

Other departments are told that staff travel is not an EBA issue, it seemed to become one for Longhaul some how.

Long and the short of it is. If anyone out there is that unhappy with what the FAAA negotiated for you, do everyone a favor and just leave, find a job that does satisfy your back pocket and is constantly protected.. Somehow I think not :O

[easternboy]

After reading the notice on the FAAA website Im confused, how could the flight attendants be locked out if protected industrial action was being taken?

[Cornholio]

3% is good. What are we all moaning about here?

You know there are people starving every day in Africa, not to mention Marines risking their necks in Fallujah and what can you, Chief SANDWICH Maker, be bothered getting off your @rse to whinge about????? Howling about your over-paid under-worked lifestyle, that's what.

Wake up and smell the napalm, you fools. You have no grip on reality, it's plain to see.

[GalleyHag]

Cornholio

I would hope then your entire salary is donated to the starving in Africa and you are a member of the Army Reserves!!

Im pleased to see your hatred for Qantas extends further then Tech Crew.

[DEFCON4]

QFCSM/Bunkmaster
Before your career as a flight attendant you were doing what?....Sharpening pencils for Cityrail and being paid a quarter of what you earn now.We are well paid for what we do.Take a year off and work in the real world and you will be back sharpening pencils for.....?Energy Australia

[qfcsm]

You know it's such a shame when such comments are made without any knowledge of the subject.

In fact I used to be an exec fatcat and I had a bunch of office kickers sharpening my pencil for me. And I know only to well about 'life in the real world'.

What you don't seem to be seeing is that the 'real world' is nearly upon you. The real flying days are all but gone. And I have been around long enough to know!

That said, what this whole thread is about is "WHY".

I respect your opinion that it is a good deal although I don't share it - not one bit!

However what I don't understand is that less than a couple of months ago this very deal was offered to the FAAA and they rejected it out of hand citing they would not allow the London base to open. We all know that was foolhardy but at least it was a starting point.

And following threats of industrial action QF began to hurt. There was no need to carry out the threat and risk being locked out. The threat was enough to send customers panicking and selecting other carriers - in droves!

So we now have the FAAA in front of the commission trying to stop the London base and in walks Mr Dixon.

I don't know if the FAAA are intimidated by GD but to go from a commission hearing on the London base to an in principle EBA deal in one afternoon is bizarre to say the least.

And all I want to know is WHY.

WHY the FAAA back flip?
WHY agree to the MASSIVE cap of 870?
WHY agree to 3% that was always available (and to all QF staff)?
WHY hand over 45% of international flying to the whim of QF?
WHY consider deleting redundant clauses 'a good deal'?

Simple question and all we want is simple answer about what happened. And please don't say it's because it's a good deal. That's just a cop out.

[DEFCON4]

The time to complain was last year
The LHR base was always going ahead...we voted for it by allowing datal axpiration of the cap.
The current executive were the people who said:vote no.
You can`t have been around too long ...you are a junior csm.
Life and the world is changing but we still have a great well paid job.
These guys did not roll over...considering Dixon`s rhetoric about a fight,they have done extremely well.
All of these points have been made by others elsewhere.Your emotion/anger clouds your perception of reality.
Former exec/fatcat...I doubt it!

[skybed]

EBA VII put through its paces
1) minimum guarantee of 30% regional flying on the airbus or 767. not bad, when we had until recently around 90%. But if we behave and praise our QF managers highly every time we sign on we might be getting more, depending on resources (I like the word possible 75%).
2) There be 6 A 380 aircraft flying by the time this EBA is finished.
3) Given that the industrial relations commission will be more likely sidelined by the new Howard government it is very hard to ascertain what that really means in our case. My guess is what QF wants QF gets (as pointed out in one afternoon they agreed to the whole deal, even before the official EBA negotiations started).
4) An agreed overseas cap 870 , means an increase of F/A’s of around 135% in foreign bases. In addition we lost a fair share to domestic already that brings it in my books to a fair reduction in flights for longhaul.
5) 5) the pay equalization clause will be deleted. Well, read the following part from the EBA VI.
CLAUSE 22 RESERVE LINE ROTATION AND PAY EQUALISATION
During the term of this EBA the parties will review options to reduce the frequency of reserve line rotation, with the objective of returning reserve line rotation to or below one bid period in ten.
The timetable for this review will be as follows:
• the parties will complete the review by 1 September 2003
• Agreed changes will be implemented by 1 November 2003.

I am by all means no industrial brains but I think its pretty much means what it says.
6) Roster review clause is another one of this now classy statements
Quote from the EBA VI:

CLAUSE 18 REVIEW OF ROSTER SYSTEM
18.1 During the term of this EBA Qantas and the FAAA will undertake a fundamental review of how flying is allocated to crew. The objectives of the review will include but not be limited to:
• A fairer share of flying between crew,
• Improved roster sociability and stability,
• A reduction in costs,
• A reduction in demand days,
• An overall improvement in roster efficiency, and
• Implementation of a trip swap system.
18.2 The timetable for this review will be as follows:
• Qantas will table a draft proposal by 1 October 2003,
• A joint Qantas FAAA working party will then be convened to
complete its deliberations by 1 February 2004, including
negotiations on changes to the certified agreement.

"DURING THE TERM OF THIS EBA..
That means that at the conclusion of the prescribed term (17 December 2004) these clauses are like the CAP, gone, gone and gone.
New Protections and Initiatives
1) 3 year agreement because of the changing industrial climate, hmhmhm. As I mentioned before IR commission will certainly change, when we try to conciliate, negotiate, beg and more begging for more regional flying and possible new aircraft.
2) 3% wage increase over 3 years , CPI 2.3 % , any of the guys in the FAAA office have been shopping lately? Anything to do with kids , insurance etc., stays at 2.3%? I don’t think so.
3) Down from 27 to 7 flights a week. Say no more.
4) For the first time new compulsory redundancy agreement. Now we have to share the burden with overseas. I did think we had a last one, first off somewhere. Now does it mean junior, senior or just a flick of a coin what determines that clause?
5) 3800+ F/A’s in 36 month , that’s a 105+ a month want to go to London during the next EBA.add embargoes and you have to have around 200 trying to go to London every week on their freebee. Maybe QF offers a weekly charterflight for cabin crew. A good laugh isn’t it?try to get on, very funny.
6) Crew to change travel beneficiaries, that’s ok. Doesn’t matter if a large number are married. Not bad.
7) THE ONLY GOOD thing is the promotion of australian based crew. The negative isr its based on a letter from QF, reminds me of the divisional flying agreement.
8) I like the word limiting the need for more overseas bases, QF got what they wanted anyway, now those lovely new f/a’s, which of course they are going to need very soon are clocking up the slotS to Mumbai and Shanghai (possible a couple of more destination in both continents very soon).
9) No sell off or diminution of existing conditions. refresh my memory, from 27 LHR trips down to 7, about 50% of regional flying gone, lost ODTA, STDA, Allowances, etc. sorry guys, I don’t belong to the top 15% in my category.
10) Didn’t the guys say NO SENORITY will be recognized upon return from London. How quick they forget.
IS THERE A DEAL SOMEWHERE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?
As for defcon’s remark. I did have businesses prior to joining and consulted in between flying. That’s why I understand this is a “dudd deal” for cabin crew. Geoff must be sitting in the toaster sipping away on the 95 bubble toasting his next massive bonus and wagerise.

[DEFCON4]

So who are you...QFCSM or SKYBED ?Or perhaps both !!

[skybed]

like yourself defcon4 a number of personalities

[qfcsm]

I think DEFCON4 stands for DEAF CONSPIRATOR.

I have been here more than 15 but less than 25. I think that's quite an innings.
And being junior means I'm in the bottom 25%.

Based on remarks from DEAFCON re "my emotion/anger clouding perception" I think likens the pot calling the kettle black.

Anyhow I started this topic and if you go back to the beginning the question still stands: WHY?

Actually I'm tired of this see-saw. Think I'll just go tell it to my crew on every trip.

Fact is the FAAA will never come clean and answer this question and we will all just go on our merry way...


Thanks for the support skybed!

[bunkmaster]

skybed , defcon4 meant me by thinking i was a pencilpusher. sorry defcon4 cant help you as i was previousley employed by an private enterprise.(no ,not in the airlines). but agree with the overall assessment from skybed. agree with qfcsm the best way to go now is clarify the deal with crew on trips, and definatly NOT LISTENING TO ANY MORE B**LS**T from either the company of the faaa. back galley chat yeah baby thats us.

Qantas

By Pemberton Strong
Aviation correspondent





10 November 2004



It seems Geoff Dixon, the $6 million man and his management team have very sneakily and very quietly introduced a form of offshore outsourcing. India would be too inflammatory, so what about some cheap sheep?

We hear from Qantas staff that Qantas in Auckland are handling Australian passengers who call Qantas from Australia.

The calls are diverted to Auckland, and the staff in Australia are sitting waiting for calls to drop in, and the staff in NZ are holding calls
for over seven minutes. So what\'s going on? Someone has to be accountable for doing this devious thing and giving away Australian jobs.

Staff are asking what\'s happening, but the usual collection of bonus-collecting managers have not replied. Is this some sort of ploy to lower staff numbers in Qantas’ Australian call centres?

That Qantas would do this so close after concluding the controversial deal on a London foreign base for long haul cabin crew, is verging on the inflammatory.

Especially as that deal was part of the new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement that has not gone down well among staff.
As it is being explained there is an increasingly feeling of unhappiness among staff.

And I cannot understand how Australian staff think they are going to survive in London on lower wages. If Qantas has an $18 million saving from the agreement, then that saving has got to come from somewhere. A lot of it will be travel costs, but a significant amount will be the allowances and other amounts paid to staff working out of Australia on long haul flights.

The other interesting thing about the Auckland call centre is that the second foreign crew base (after Bangkok) is based there in a building in Queen Street, Auckland. It is run by the international labour hire firm, Adecco.

Is this Auckland call centre an Adecco, Qantas invention, staffed by contractors and not Qantas employees? And is it being run in tandem with the foreign crew base?

Meanwhile Qantas IS more than a seat for one friend of Crikey. This friend is a big time heavy duty traveller, averaging one and a bit flights to Melbourne a week at the moment (and to Perth, Brisbane, Hobart and Darwin in the past six weeks, not to mention Canberra and Adelaide.)

To this friends it\'s also big shiny planes, terminals, plastic food and slightly surly and disgruntled staff, not to mention a growing number of business passengers who fell used and abused.

Take a friend of Crikey, a Platinum member of the Qantas Club and half way to qualifying for another year at this level, after only three and a bit months. This friend cops a letter from Qantas advising that their Platinum membership is being reviewed.

For upgrade, to where this friend thought. Nope, they were going to downgrade her. A call to Qantas elicited an embarrassing background, profuse apologies and the line, "You shouldn\'t have got that letter" But no explanation as to how or why it was sent to a member of such good standing.

Yes, Qantas is more than just a seat!

But with the prospects of a Christmas replay of the 1998 Docks dispute over the Qantas EBA(and with Qantas hiring several hundred strike breakers), I\'m a little disappointed.

You see I\'d always be served coffee by an Alsatian on short leash, wearing a Qantas attendant\'s gear on a City Flyer dash to Melbourne.
Or a nice Shiraz on a longer flight to Perth or Los Angeles by a nice, well dressed Doberman.

Of course their trainers, sorry supervisors would have been wearing face masks or balaclavas and dressed in \'Darlo\' black. No name tags or numbers.

But that particular dream courtesy of Chris Corrigan at Patrick and Virgin Blue, is no more

But there is a great deal of unhappiness, as this email shows

Consultation meetings have been taking place though out Qantas ASU ranks.

Meetings are not yet over, they finish next week. But so far the strong feeling is that staff are very disappointed at what has been offered to them in the latest rounds of EBA.

Considering that they have in principal achieved an agreement with the FAAA, which is very nice thank you very much. Other staff who are trying to secure a better deal in the EBA, feel totally neglected and forgotten.

[DEFCON4]

Now,now,girls...be nice.You are still only 3 voices of dissent

[captainrats]

Eventually,shorthaul and longhaul will cease to exist as entities.While this may be difficult for some to come to terms with it will actually be a benefit to most by allowing family friendly flying to be shared more equitably.As priorities in life change so does the type of flying required to reflect that change.
The idea of being locked into ultra long flying(back to back PER/LHR`s)would not be appealing to most.The damage to a crew member`s wellbeing doing this type of flying should not be underestimated.
In 1988 when the bid system was introduced emotions,as now ran high...one crewmember had their family dog poisoned and vehicles were vandalised in the car park.As it turned out the company had done flight attendants a favour...Pay increased,destination choice,opentime,tripswapping were all a benefit.When all the emotion subsides EBA7 will be viewed in a similar fashion.
Having said that, I am surprised that better maternity leave conditions were not negotiated...70% of all crew are female(both long and shorthaul)
Life has changed,there is no going back.EBA7 will be voted up and everyone`s lives will benefit.Only time will prove this to be correct

[argusmoon]

Wages are comprised of a base hourly rate and appropriate ODTA ADTA,some overtime and long range pay.Allowances received overseas are considered(for tax purposes) to be fully expended.As a result they do incur a less than 1%tax penalty...They are not wages.When applying for a mortgage they cannot be taken into account nor are they superannuable.You cannot consider them to be part of your salary.If you do you should pay the appropriate rate of tax.You cannot have it both ways.By highlighting the amount of allowance received in forums such as this puts them under scrutiny and perhaps a revision of applicable tax will occur.

[skybed]

Captainrats has a very good point. If the union excexs had any brains (or less egos, instead more common sense) they would already work on a joint award. So far the only winner is qf in playing longhaul vs. shorthaul. And yes paternity leave, part time for f/a’s (more) and csm/css , flexible working hours etc.as in shorthaul are also shortcomings of this eba. It will also impact on your income as argusmoon points out ( unless you are in the top 25%). And shorthaul did not have to fight in keeping there 737, 767 and airbus flying (funny that). As we pondered point by point over this in the aft galley last night I wouldn’t be so sure this gets up.

[DEFCON4]

And the alternatives are......uncertainty,a withdrawal of the agreement,unlimited overseas bases,a loss of all airbus flying.
What are you guys thinking??The world has changed ,deal with it you dinosaurs

[GalleyHag]

I dont think Qantas would ever merge the two divisions purely because of the industrial nature of such a merge.

Now if one division threatens or takes industrial action they can cope to a cetain extent and this wouldnt shut the airline down but a merge and one EBA would do that.

[bunkmaster]

sky bed has a valid point even it does get knocked back we send the faaa back for another round (unless the are too scared of GD). i think it was two or three eba's ago we send them back and it was a different outcome in the end. as for your scaremongering, defcon4 take it easy there are still plenty of options out there. as was mentioned before to get rid of 4000 crew is not that easy. btw anyone seen that latest faaa newsletter? seems to me the faaa does the companies job of trying to scare f/a's. begs the questions again WHY and WHAT is the DEAL and why aren't they telling us?

[Bodum]

This just keeps going round and round in circles :rolleyes:

Reality check:

United airlines are still flying under chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Cabin Crew are facing paycuts and loss of benefits.

Delta Airlines: 10% pay cut and the loss of 8000 jobs.. They may soon also file for chapter 11 protection.

The list goes on, just get it and realise that what we have really isnt that bad. How would you feel if you worked for United or Delta now? Pretty bad I reckon.

Not only that.. I have a couple of friends in Europe who fly and are regulars on this site. Let me tell you what Europe thinks of us.. They are tired of the endless Qantas bashing threads appearing on here and think we are all spoilt Brats.

Time to put this one to bed :suspect:

[DEFCON4]

BODUM,
Agree with you 1000%.
BUNKMASTER
what ARE the options you keep raving on about?
GALLEY HAG
Both divisions are doing more of each other`s flying now than ever before....they are merging,slowly,but they are merging.Cross crewing between divisions is not far away.60% of Sydney based shorthaul are ex longhaul.Get with the programme!!!

[GalleyHag]

DEFCON4

Your an agressive piece of work and your comments prove what little business sense you have.

Im not disputing that we now share a great deal of each other's flying, however I highly doubt all Qantas cabin crew will be one division with one EBA it would be industrial suicide for Qantas management.

However, they may find ways where cross crewing is able to occur but that would mean our two unions would have to agree and I dont like your chances of that ever happening.

What has the percentage of long haul crew now at short haul have to do with anything? Maybe you should think about what you say before flying off your keyboard!!

[argusmoon]

EBA 6 got up by a small majority,and it was a disgrace.
EBA 7 addresses most of the inequities in EBA6 and it will sh*t in ,since the majority of crew are more pragmatic than the salacious miscreants that inhabit this particular forum.
No wonder most people have the impression that CC are imbeciles.Just reading most of the vacuous rubbish in this forum would be enough to convince any one.
I have to fly with you idiots and I am here to say you are not an FA`s bootlace...you stain the rest of us.

[str]

Just heard that there will be only 1 slot for Aussie crew on each daily flight we have ACCESS to, to LHR.

I knew that was coming. Apparently the FAAA aren't happy about this turn up of events from the company. But they should have seen it coming. Nothing in EBA 7 guaranteeing 15 slots for Aussie crew.

Another reason to vote NO.

[surfside6]

Back to the negotiating table.

[jettlager]

Hi STR,

I'll be voting NO too as I strongly feel that the "in principle agreement" is a dud deal.

Geoff Dixon gets all he wants and in return we cop a pay cut via loss of access to the London route.

The word upline suggests many others will be voting no.

Jettlager

[SydGirl]

qfcsm,

I am of the understanding that the answer to your question of "WHY?" is that QF and the FAAA went to the AIRC in an attempt to resolve their differences.

The AIRC most likely told them both to pull their finger out (though they probably said it a little more eloquently than I did) and come to an agreement expeditiously (sp?).

Therefore, it is no wonder that after much angst and chagrin that the FAAA came out with an agreement that they suddenly endorsed. Basically, because they HAD to.

With the government re-elected, the industrial laws are going to go through a significant change. Unions will have even less power than they do now, which means that striking will become a thing of the past.

My thoughts.
SG
:D

[bunkmaster]

Clarity
Bodum: spend a bit of looking at figures as to why the American airlines in trouble, not just picking up headlines in the newspapers. Read reports from financial journos. The cheapest u.s carrier jetblue has a labour cost of around 24.3%. united, american, etc used to be double and with the concessions of their unions they are still somewhere between the 30% to 35%. If you bother spending time looking at the qf figures they show labour costs are around 23.7% and going down. as for European airlines, BA, Lufthansa, Air France etc.(not el cheapos) crew earn a lot more (and some of them have government pension attached to them) but we all know the cost of leaving in Europe. Sing air earns similar less tax, low housing loans, free health care. THAT makes QF crew cheap.
Defcon4: wans’t there a promise to get professional negotiators in and the best legal advise etc. fro the FAAA. Must be an Australian first to have an agreement before the official negotiations even start. As for options, the faaa wouldn’t be the first to keep on negotiating beyond a date. Remember bookings where down, make no mistake the pressure was on for GD. the point is stick to your promises. we all know you never get everthing but .....
Argusmoon: you need a life. Contribute to the debate but don’t get personal.
Str: if its true that only one crew member per flight to London say no more, aussie based crew going to be the outcasts on the run. Another shortcoming of the EBA (if its true)
SydGirl:you are correct the IR laws will change, but most likely not before July 05. they did not have to do a deal (but I respect your point). the questions remains WHAT did GD say to them to sign up in one afternoon?
You are going to see the hard sell of the eba from qf and faaa via the forums and meetings.
As always the devil is in the details. Lets wait until we get a copy and then dissect it and find some more interesting points.

[DEFCON4]

Otherwise known as the BACK GALLEY BOOFHEAD...You know zero about the negotiating process and even less about about Industrial law.No argument,no facts,just empty rhetoric and assertions.Give us something from reliable quotable sources instead of something you make up while squatting."They did not have to do a deal"...how do you know that?.Just another assertion with no basis

There was never a promise by the FAAA to employ professional negotiators.Mijatov is a very passionate individual who rolls over for nobody.HE was the one who was against the last EBA.Give up the weed and get back to reality.

[bunkmaster]

presumable defcon4 sits in the faaa office is and spends time (resources) defending his buddies.
memory lane from meetings and notices.
there will be no london base
will fight any increase in the cap (based on the 370 cap)
it will result in a global salary reduction
a global wage cut

hmhmmm
has gone to
London base+ most attached issues what qf wanted anyway. senority etc.
real wage rise /contradictes the original statement/n
no sell off of current conditions/ down a fair bit of flying/redundancy/dont bring up the roster review and pay equalisation again.
a cap on overseas bases (870 positions)
read skybeds /str/ captainrats points again and all the faaa memos you may then understand why the cynics have a valid point. and as far as they had to do a deal let us know why?

time to go to bed

[DEFCON4]

Once more for Bunkmaster:
1.The LHR base was always going to go ahead..Majority of crew voted for a datal limitation to the overseas base cap.
2.These(EBA7) negotiations were all about damage limitation
3.We have a 9% pay increase over 3 years.(We all get paid well enough as it is)
4.We now have a cap on bases...Now no chance of LAX being a base for example.The Company looked at it and others.
5.We still have access to LHR.A full crew complement daily,despite opinions in this forum to the contary.
6.Security over A380 flying ..which protects your long range and O.T payments
7.Shared Airbus flying,before it looked like we would lose it all.
I will ask the FAAA to produce a copy of the in principal agreement written in words of one syllable so that BUNKMASTER can digest it.
Don`t make anymore baseless assertions until you have read it.
You keep going on (like a broken CD)about them "having to do a deal".No one had to do a deal about anything.It is called NEGOTIATING.There had already been months of preliminary discussion before formal discussions began.An inprincipal agreement was never going to take that long.The agreement was reached inside the parameters of "formal discussions".
I have just explained it to my 10 year old and he understands it.Perhaps he can send you an e-mail and clarify it for you.
EBA7 IS AND WAS ABOUT DAMAGE CONTROL...Capiche?

[qfcsm]

Mmmm, wonder where you get the idea bases in other ports can't go ahead.

The cap is 870 but is not specific to any base.
Currently we have 370 (or there abouts) in AKL and BKK which leaves 400.
About 200 Aussie crew have put their hand up to go to LHR which leaves 200 slots for UK locals.
But that's if QF decides to employ that many.

Nothing precludes them from deciding to use 100 slots in LHR and opening a base in LAX with the other 100.

Or perhaps you know more about this deal than the rest of us.... now how could that be!

[DEFCON4]

The numbers you suggest would be totally uneconomical and dare I say pointless.The number of crew necessary to"Man" the LHR base was actually closer to a thousand,hence the continued access of Australian crew to this port.The problem for Qantas with both these ports has been the room night requirements.In LAX for example the room night requirement is almost 6000/month.Hence the need to spread crew complements over three hotels.Economies of scale would not apply if the 870 overseas based crew were scattered in the manner you suggest.Nor would rostering efficiencies be achieved.
Playing Devil`s Advocate with "what if`s"is pointless until you read the in principal agreement,then you can make a well informed asessment.

[qfcsm]

So where do you get your information from?
Sounds like you are very close to the 'action'.

Maybe you are just a company plant revving up crew who simply want to have a say and ask some questions.

If you are such an authority then tell us who you really are or we will just go believing you are one of those crew who think they know it all!

Hey what about a small but economic base in Mumbai, or maybe Shanghai or Hong Kong. Nothing to stop that and you could employ cheap labour on the basis of culture - and still stay within the cap!

If previous QF interpretations of EBA and Award clauses is anything to go by (product and recognition come to mind) then QF will do whatever they fancy.

[skybed]

Defcon4
Once again you need to go back and read what’s been put in previous threads. Your continuous outbursts of anger and lack of understanding why crew questioning this in-principle agreement (or should the faaa put out a new headline damage controlled in-principle agreement) has me more then ever convinced you are sitting at the union office. Previous promises/ memos as pointed out and the factual news so far don’t quit add up, and I say it AGAIN lets wait and see the details. As for your argument in economics of scale to have a small base in India or somewhere, just a little reminder that the NZ base was down well below a hundred and only ever had around a 130 or so. you r place of residence is gwandwanaland and you act like you are of the planet.

[DEFCON4]

To set the record straight:
1.I am not on the union
2.I am a CSS
3.I have been flying 26 years
4.As to what you think of me...I could care less
I have seen this all before and in particular 1988.Individuals running off at the mouth with no information but plenty of hysterical speculation.Wait until you read a copy of the inprincipal
agreement(I Have) before attempting to participate in any type of informed debate.
When the bid system was introduced there was this same sort of mentality:didn`t want change,wages will be reduced,conditions lost.The same people who didn`t want change(the Bid System)would now scream if it was taken away.
Lets compare apples with apples.....Currently you have 27 flights a week to LHR....crew northbound,southbound,slipping.North and south they must slip in BKK or SIN and soon HKG do the math.AKL has ONE service a day to LAX,and an occasional overnight from East coast Australia and the crew there(AKL Based)are now employed by Jetconnect.
Compare the rostering efficiencies and the critical mass required and you will see your(SKYBED) argument is spurious.
I am done.
"WHILE THE DOGS BARK THE WAGON ROLLS ON"

[str]

FYI - Just confirmed with FAAA that the 1 flight per day will be exclusively for Australian crew. This will now be put in writting in the 'in principle EBA VII'.

Still a dud EBA though.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Not wanting to pick a fight with you str, but your last post proves one important fact that I believe EVERYBODY should observe PRIOR to making any judgement of the in principle agreement:

Until you are in possession of all the facts, you are not qualified to make an educated decision.

Your latest post proves that 'galley gossip' can be just as flawed as the agreement you believe it to be. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the FAAA, this is proof (yet again) that the 'experts' in the galley are no more an expert than Merv and Doreen from the Airport Kiosk.

Get the facts THEN make a decision, not the other way around. The consequences could be detrimental to yourself and your colleagues.

[str]

Mr Seatback 2,

Actually the company only agreed with this toward the end of last week. Thats why the 'inprinciple' agreement which is currently at the FAAA and QF website does not state exclusivety of access to LHR flights by Aussie crew.

So if you read the current printed agreement the company could quite easily have put only one slot for Australian crew per day.

The FAAA assures us now that this will be put in writting in the new copy of the EBA 7 which will go out to vote. Don't understand why they didn't ensure this was in writting in the first place though.

[Mr Seatback 2]

Sometimes, when you are writing something as involved as an agreement, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Like I said, not attacking you str, but attacking the points that some individuals make on these and other threads based PURELY on gossip rather than possession of all the facts.

[jetjockey7]

Mr. Seatback 2....At last a voice of commonsense and reason.I agree with you wholeheartedly.. a little bit too much speculation and not enough concrete information.

[galley_gossiper]

jetlagger

The word upline suggests many others will be voting no.

I will disagree with you on that one.
Have recently come back from an AKL-LAX trip, various crew of various seniority. Most said they would vote it up, most reasons talked about were they were scared to take industrial action. The feeling was one of relief that an agreement was reached.

This is one that will get voted up.

I still think the free ticket to LHR should be a ticket to 'anywhere'. A lot of people would not want to go to LHR, even if it was free. Me-fine-self included ;)

[qfcsm]

Well I have been patient and now the EBA VII document is available - although it is two days late!

And as I have mentioned before the overseas base clause is WIDE OPEN!

Lets have a look:

12 OVERSEAS BASES
12.1 This clause replaces Clause 17 of EBA VI, that in turn replaced clause 68 of EBA IV and Clause 23 of EBA V.

12.2 In the event that Qantas Airways Limited decides to open additional overseas base(s) with Long Haul cabin crew, the Company will consult with the Association 3 months prior to opening the base.

12.3 For the life of this Agreement, the Company commits to ensuring that the number of crew employed in overseas bases will be no more than 870 FTE including crew employed in the category of Customer Service Manager and Customer Service Supervisor in the London base.

So where does it say that QF will not open other bases?
Where does it say that it will not shut BKK and open LAX?
Where does it say that it will not open a small base in Mumbai or Shanghai or Hong Kong?

IT DOESN'T!

And there's more. Read this little gem:

15 UNDERTAKINGS ON COMPULSORY
In addition to the requirement under EBA III for the Company to consult with the FAAA on measures to avert or minimise compulsory redundancies:

• No Australian based crew member will be made compulsorily redundant as a result of any decision to open or operate an overseas base.

• Where the Company is required to make crew members compulsorily redundant in circumstances not related to the opening or operation of an overseas base:

o Company will ensure that the number of cabin crew made redundant is shared across all Australian and overseas bases that have been affected by the circumstances which have resulted in the requirement for compulsory redundancies;

o the Company will not take into account the relative employment cost of Australian based crew when determining the number of Australian based cabin crew to be made compulsorily redundant.

So a UK hire or a BKK or AKL base hire gets to keep their job working for an Aussie firm when Ausiies are being turfed onto the dole queue - BLOODY UN-AUSTRALIAN.

But that's ok because you will be eventually replaced by a casual!
18 CASUAL EMPLOYMENT

And you have to love the two clauses [20 & 21] that refer to clauses in a previous EBA that were date redundand. QF must have been laughing so hard at the FAAA insisting on these!

So this is the good, tight deal that we have all been waiting for.
My position stands - it is not a good deal and I will be voting NO!

[jettlager]

Its a ****e deal for all except the trough feeders.

An emphatic NO.

[DEFCON4]

Do you three share the same house?

[qfcsm]

DEFCON if you have nothing constructive to add to this forum can I ask you to please go start your own where you can bag as much as you like.
Thanks....

[DEFCON4]

You Guys....this is the 21st century the aviation industry is changing.We all still have a well paid job,great superannuation,shares that are increasing in value,travel benefits,the list goes on.Everybody goes to work to earn bucks to create a lifestyle.As far as wage earners are concerned we are in the top 10%(ABS Figures)in Australia.Still you complain,still you want to vote no.What did you do for a living before flying?...I am damn sure it didn`t pay as well,you didn`t have as much block time off and chances are it was a lot more stressful.
When you can`t accommodate the change....exit stage right, to a lesser paid, more stressful job.People have left flying because they felt badly done by, and everyone of them would love to come back!!
BTW:If LHR is such an important destination for crew why are there so many LHR patterns in O/T for all categories?
"WHILE THE DOGS BARK THE WAGON ROLLS ON"

[mach2male]

Where have the three blind mice gone?

[bunkmaster]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i can thelp myself but i have to reply to those silly comments from defcon4
1) this is the 21st century the aviation industry is changing.
defcon4 has not grasp it yet but it has changed from the 50's onward. welcome to planet earth.
2) We all still have a well paid job,great superannuation,shares that are increasing in value,travel benefits,the list goes on.
since wage freeze, little bonuses etc we have not cought up with the rest of oz in pay.but it seems you are happy to keep cutting our hard fought wages and conditions and work more for less every time the EBA comes up. EBA were designed to improve efficencies and trade for pay. most of us dont get to work to earn a lifestyle, we actualy work to put our kids through school, feed the family, try to pay of a mortgage etc.. NOT LIFE STYLE. Everybody goes to work to earn bucks to create a lifestyle. and i like to see that ABS stats. and again as so many times pointed out in this forum this eba will affect the incomes of 75% cabin crew. you may be in the top 20% of your category (in which it may not have an impact to you at all) but the rest will suffer. and again losing most regional flying to shorthaul is not going to help also.
GET IT. I DONT THINK SO

[DEFCON4]

It seems I have to explain every concept to you guys precisely.
1.Lifestyle:Children,mortgage, car, house, clothing, food, holidays, computers,white goods etc .....not in that order.
2. 21st Century...I was referring to globalization
3.Wages we haven`t caught up as we are still way AHEAD.
4.Longhaul,time changes of greater than 3 hours ..east or west.That`s why we are called LONGHAUL.
Bunkmaster I hope I have the dubious pleasure(my)of working with you one day.Your epithet appears to reflect your attitude to work.Bunkmaster=MTO
If any of this needs any further clarification please don`t hesitate to ask.
The average wage for an Australian male is $41048.80 gross.If I can find the precise page on the ABS website I will create a hyperlink for your viewing pleasure and edification( and no,it is not education misspelt).
If your marginal rate of tax is in the highest bracket(48%)you are in the top 10% of wage/salary earners.I do research before I quote these statistics,unlike others whose research appears to consist of a few beers and the odd bong.
"WHILE THE DOGS BARK THE WAGON ROLLS ON"

[DEFCON4]

You(Bunkmaster)tend to be very selective about what you answer and/or criticize.So I will ask again...If the LHR base is such an important destination for longhaul crew why are so many LHR patterns in O/T for all categories?

[qfcsm]

DEFCON I don't think anybody is arguing wether we have a good job or not. We agree with you that it is.
But a lot of previous union officials fought long and hard battles to get it to where it is today.

What we don't want is the new kids on the block, who have no long standing union experience, from giving it all away.
It won't be long till it's no longer a good job and is simply an average one.

What scares me is the fact that you are willing to accept a deal that clearly erodes conditions. And you can't say you don't. The simple fact that you say that it is a good job and that this deal is ok suggests you are willing to let the 'good' become less than good.

You said you are not 'on the union'. I certainly hope not!

To previous union officials I say thank you for this wonderful, well paid job and I will try to stop the conditions you worked so hard to achieve for all crew from being sacrificed for the (senior) few.

So have we worked out why the FAAA caved in yet?

[DEFCON4]

Send Mijatov an e-mail at the FAAA,I am sure he will only be to happy to answer your question.If you think our conditions are being eroded stand for election next time,or voice your concerns at one of the many upcoming FAAA meetings.

[qfcsm]

At DEFCON's suggestion I have set the following email to the FAAA.
And I will post the reply here

Hi Michael,

Could you please answer the following questions:

Why the FAAA went from such a solid position on no London base to one of complete reversal albeit with a cap?

And how it came to be that an in-principle agreement was born from a commission hearing on the opening of the London base?

Thank you,
qfcsm:ooh:

[peanut pusher]

Str & Qfcsm and all the other clan members,
Go to the FAAA meetings for EBA and have it explained why we have the best deal going.
It is then you have a good understanding of the situation we are in and what now is the new industry standard.
Its here I learnt the famous 66% was not across the board per person but was collectively and dicko got 4% and jamie got 9% etc etc.
Lesson number 1 once you price yourself out of a market you soon become obsolete. = Wang computer CEO 1996

[qfcsm]

Thank you for your informed opinion.
Guess that makes everything ok - that others got ???

Question still stands - why the change of tactics?

Any other improvements on peanut-pushers or is that the justification for this deal 'that dicko only got 4%'?

Bring it on....... THE NO VOTE!

[DEFCON4]

I think he means Jamie PACKER not Jamie SINCLAIR.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool,than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[qfcsm]

Still no reply from the email I sent to the FAAA.
Guess the question was too hard to answer....!!!

[DEFCON4]

Be Patient,Mijatov et al are very busy at present,with meetings etc.

[peanut pusher]

Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants
ANONYMOUS EBA VII - VOTE NO MATERIAL
An anonymous anti EBA VII document is being circulated at FAAA meetings and by email. The following obvious points need to be made: -

1) Hiding behind anonymity indicates that the author/s are not prepared to reveal their identity because the material they are peddling is misleading, incorrect or because there are other unstated motives behind their decision to propagate their unsigned material.


2) Making assertions without evidence clearly indicates that the author/s have minimal understanding of the complexities of the issues and even less idea about the legal framework that we must operate under and the legal requirements specified in the Workplace Relations Act that must be met in relation to EBA's, industrial action and the voting processes associated with approving a new EBA.

Every member and non-member has the right to express his or her views both in support of and against the EBA VII in-principle agreement. Indeed, I and Andrew Smedley and Steven Reed led the No campaign against EBA6 last year.

However, I ask anyone who choses to exercise this right to do as we did last year and attach their names to any material. Cabin crew are entitled to know the names of people advocating a NO vote so that their credentials and motivation can be examined.

It is unacceptable that anonymity is used to spread misinformation or lies that could have severe consequences in the highly unlikely event of crew deciding to believe such material.

The in-principle agreement is supported unanimously by the Divisional Executive of the FAAA. It has been reached after months of sensitive negotiations backed up by unprecedented and relentless pressure on Qantas. It wasn't achieved suddenly overnight as some people are absurdly claiming.

The deal has been examined by industrial staff, by legal staff including a senior industrial Barrister. It is a deal that reverses the huge flaws of EBA VI and it is a deal that gives this Division and its cabin crew a future, all achieved with no offsets and no industrial action.

The strategy that my colleagues and I have pursued the last several months has been to use every means at our disposal to achieve several key things: -

• A cap on overseas bases – where there will be none after December 17, 2004.

• Access to London - where Qantas announced there would be no access.

• In the event of Compulsory Redundancies, overseas based crew will also share the burden not just Australian based crew as is currently the case.

• Secure guaranteed flying for Long Haul crew on the 747, A330 and A380 when no such enforceable guarantees exist.

• No sell off of existing conditions i.e. the bid system, slipping formula, allowances, accommodation or increasing roster hours.

My senior colleagues and I were personally accused by our opponents in the FAAA (all who have been replaced by the membership) as being radicals who would recklessly jeopardise crew through irresponsible industrial action.

We however, do not intend to act irresponsibly and play Russian roulette with your future by engaging in massive industrial action for the sake of it, when all key FAAA objectives have been finally conceded by Qantas in the in-principle EBA VII agreement and the new Divisional Flying Agreement

As head of the FAAA, I recommend the in-principle agreement to you as an excellent outcome. It is an outcome that no other union has yet achieved. Considering our inheritance from EBA 6 it is a remarkable achievement and an achievement that would not have been possible without the huge membership support during the last several months.

The FAAA will not sit idly by and allow anonymous individuals with their unknown motives to spread nonsense about this in-principle agreement. I am certain that crew understand that my colleagues and I do not have magic wands or that we can perform miracles, unlike the anonymous individuals who seem to suggest that we do have those abilities.

This leadership has been totally upfront and honest in its communication to the membership about all issues including the in-principle EBA agreement. We were elected on that basis and we will always operate on that basis. I believe the in-principle agreement will be approved by a resounding majority of crew because any objective analysis of the agreement indicates clear benefits and job security for crew.

However, you should be in no doubt that a rejection of the in-principle agreement by crew will indicate to us a willingness and clear instruction from crew to embark on extensive industrial action on a scale never undertaken before- that simply is the reality. A “no smile day” or a 14-hour stoppage like last year simply won't cut the mustard. The rejection of the agreement without the membership prepared to undertake ongoing strike action would spell disaster for crew and their conditions because Qantas in that scenario would go for the proverbial “jugular”. This is not a scare tactic but us being completely realistic with you.

I urge all crew to attend the meetings and to ignore anonymous material. This is about your future so take the time to actually come to the meetings and ask questions and then decide how to vote in an informed manner rather than listening to scuttlebutt and woefully informed gossip by some who speak with such authority and who haven't got a clue.

Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division

[DEFCON4]

Read:
"ATTENTION ALL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS"......by PEANUT PUSHER.I am sure this will answer many of your queries

[qfcsm]

Still no reply from the email I sent to the FAAA.
Guess the question was too hard to answer....!!!

[galley_gossiper]

qfcsm

if (as you suggest by the direct 'quote' posted of your email - and you posted it as a quote ) you signed your email to the FAAA as 'qfcsm' - why would you expect a response?
If I was the head of any organisation, I certainly would not bother to respond to anyone who doesnt bother to put their name to an email, particularly if it is knocking that organisation's stance on an issue.
I am certainly no friend of the current FAAA execs, but if you dont put your name to an email that is knocking what they have done, you certainly cannot expect a response.
Get a grip dude :mad:

[qfcsm]

Gave up waiting for a reply today...!
FAAA must be too busy filling out their ballot papers - they do have so many to fill out each after all :}

I noticed all the FAAA propaganda spoke about the agreement being endorsed by the Executive but I never saw anything about what the International Branch thought.

Could it be that the Branch has been gagged?

:uhoh:

[bunkmaster]

i thought you might have realised by now they are too busy selling the eba. but then again you rarley get a reply out of the faaa's office. as qfcsm said i wonder why it has not been publicly endorsed by the branch councils. anyway, too many fa,s with huge mortgages so the eba will probably pass.comments i received from my last trip. or as other guys put it going east vote is no /going west vote is yes/ regional a split. a lot more trips at the moment going west.:yuk:

[GalleyHag]

20 December 2004

Attention all Qantas Long Haul Flight Attendants

EBA VII APPROVED BY A MASSIVE MARGIN

It is with great personal pleasure that I can announce on behalf of all your elected officials that the EBA VII in-principle agreement has been approved by an overwhelming 88% of Long Haul Cabin Crew who voted in the postal ballot. The participation rate in the ballot was 72% (a very large turnout).

Your overwhelming endorsement of the new EBA has ensured that key job security guarantees (a cap on overseas based crew, new compulsory redundancy provisions that will affect overseas based crew for the first time, guaranteed minimum access to London and restrictions on the ability to promote overseas based crew) will now be in place to protect you.

International crew will now have guaranteed access to A330 flying and exclusive access to the A380 when it commences flying. The International Division will now be a growing Division and not the shrinking Division that it was becoming.

In addition crew will receive a 9% pay rise over the term of the agreement without any offsets. Furthermore, from January 1, a free upgradeable return ticket to London will be available for a crew member or a Group A travel beneficiary and crew will be able to change travel beneficiaries every 6 months.

The FAAA wishes to thank its members for the resounding vote of confidence as demonstrated by the YES vote. The new EBA VII is a very good agreement that was achieved after months of negotiations and pressure on Qantas. It is an agreement that was achieved by your huge support for your elected officials and that support was key in Qantas finally conceding on critical issues.

There will be undoubted challenges ahead, but nevertheless the FAAA and its members should look ahead with confidence because finally we have demonstrated that we are a credible, cohesive and disciplined group of people in an environment of constant change.

I wish all of you and those close to you a very merry Christmas and we should all look forward to 2005 with optimism and confidence.

Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov – Secretary International Division

[captainrats]

An Intelligent Result.Illustrates that the uninformed naysayers here are in the vast minority.

[galley_gossiper]

Well .....as qfcsm thought ' the no vote is gaining momentum'

guess he/ she/' it' (maybe a tranny???) was wrong ...


Gee qfcsm .... you were so opposed to the the new EBA, we can only presume you cannot work under the new conditions???

Do us all a favour - resign ...

I am SO sick of working with whinging crew ....

get a real 9-5 job qfcsm ... work out what you would really get paid for a 23 hour week in the 9-5 workforce.

My last few flights, I am so over the crew I work with .... whinge, whinge, whinge .... if half of them had to see what a 40 hr week pays them (with their 'skills' ) in the real workforce .... well they might think themselves a bit fortunate...

I am crew, but yet---- so over the whinging idiots I work with ( Oh and yeah - I worked before cabin crew .... 52 hours a week for less than I earn now)...

Get over it .... we aint so special.... it aint brain surgery .... so 'deal'

and if you dont like it just f**king quit .... why stay on if you hate it so much?

I am more embarrassed by the crew I work with, than any 'service cuts' the company has made.



:mad:

[GalleyHag]

galley_gossiper you wouldnt be a whinger by any chance would you? Oh no of course not just whinging like a little baby about the awful crew you have to endure. Here's a tip if you dont like it QUIT!! Go and find yourself a 9-5 job with NO whinges, here I will give you a grand if you ever find such a place.

Get a life and get over yourself and thats right YOU are not that special!!

[str]

And on the same day the complacent QF crew voted Yes to this nonsense of an EBA...the company screwed us again....this time taking away Jakarta and Manilla flights (for Y/C crew) and handing them to the Kiwi overseas base.

Yes doing the right thing by QF really gets us a result. Amazingly this was news was told to is by the FAAA and they didn't have a word of complaint about it!

What next A/O going to Rome on 743's? - Watch out, its might just happen.

[Sonique]

The new EBA for AO is currently being negotiated and expires Dec 31 2004. This is just one idea the company has put forward forward for the EBA.


Australian Airlines wants to remove the current EBA restriction of
flying only 767 aircraft and flying within a 4 hour time zone east or west of CNS. We believe these restrictions are not realistic for an agreement that will last for three years. The Company wants to be in the best position possible to pursue new flying and research new routes to ensure our long-term viability.
· As part of this change Australian Airlines will guarantee a minimum
period at home base of 48 hours and two local nights for a tour of
duty involving east west flying exceeding a four-hour time zone change in
one direction. If Australian Airlines ever did consider flying to
Europe, we would also consider whether additional home rest was required.
· Australian Airlines has also offered to increase the current cap on
redundancy payments from 6 weeks to 15 weeks (that is, five years
service at three weeks per year of service).


Australian Airlines wants to remove the current EBA restriction of flying on 767 aircraft

[qfcsm]

Let's weigh this up:

We get 3% - so does the rest of QF

We get ability to change staff travel beneficiary every 6 months - so does the rest of QF (from 4 Jan 05)

We get a free ticket to London for 1 person - try and get on a flight

We get a cap of 870 on overseas bases - only 100 or so Aust base crew are going to LHR so the UK recruitment will be huge and will include CSS and CSM positions!

And this was a good deal??
More like good luck!!

And if you think there aren't more little tricks and traps in that EBA, think again. QF employs far smarter people than the FAAA do - the evidence so far is abundantly clear.

.

[argusmoon]

QFCSM,
Don`t keep us in suspense, elaborate as to what these "tricks and traps are.This EBA was and is essentially about damage control.The time for action was last year.88% of your colleagues appear to disagree with you.
As has been said elsewhere...THERE IS NO YOU IN QANTAS.Get used to it.You still have a well paid job

[qfcsm]

I totally agree with you that this still is a good well paid job - no argument! And I am "used to it" and would like to keep it that way.

This thread was about a bad deal, not a bad job, and the people who gave it to us.

It was about an abandoned oportunity to do a "better deal" and trying to make crew aware of that opportunity.

I say 'was' because as you point out, 88% of crew voted for it. That's the way democracy works. I just hope that sometime in the future people look back at the EBA7 wreckage and learn for the next one. But I guess that it truly wishful thinking!

Merry Christmas

.

[mach2male]

You just don`t get it.....LAST YEAR!!!! LAST YEAR!!! was the time to take action.The bending over was done LAST YEAR.EBA6 was voted up LAST YEAR.Greg Broome, Johanna Brem and Troy Warner allowed you to be "done over"and no one has had one word of explanation from them.

[qfcsm]

What the **** are you talking about???

Not sure if you have a calendar close by but it is now 2004 and we have just voted on EBA SEVEN, read SEVEN!

Are you going to complain about EBA 1,2,3,4 and 5 too...

Fact is the EBA is done and buried and we will now live with the headache from it.

It's Christmas eve and I have a hangover and as far as I'm concerned this thread is finished.

See you out there - then again I probably won't as all the crew I will be flying with will be from overseas bases or shorthaul... !!!!

[str]

Biscut is exact on the mark. Transfer more and more flying to AO then QF will tell crew we have no flying for you, VR will be offered, leave without pay (they are already offereing this for 6-12 months now). Crew will quit of be offered transfers to AO on their pay and conditions. Once QF had achieved this they will start rebranding AO flights back to QF.

They have won and 88% of brainless crew helped them do it. Last night one girl told me she voted yes because she will get a free flight to London EVERY year. She was very disappointed when I told her it was one flight of the life of the EBA (3yrs). Lovely girl but she had not questioned the EBA at all.

One part of the EBA still has me amazed. Its reads : The company commits to ensuring no more that 870 full time employess will be based overseas..what the? Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Happy Christmas to all except the QF and FAAA visitors.

[mach2male]

EBA 6 was where the overseas base clause was inserted and date limited.The terms and conditions under EBA6 lead us to problems we have now.Get it????EBA7 was about controlling the damage done under EBA6.If you need further explanation read the EBA 6 on the web.If you need further assistance my 5 year old will explain it to you.We should not have agreed to be EBA6.Then was the time for industrial action when we had the upper hand.Now is too late as you are vaguely aware.