Qantas London base
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas ignores union threats
Sat "Sydney Morning Herald"
Qantas ignores union threats
By Scott Rochfort
July 31, 2004
In the face of vocal union opposition, Qantas will press ahead with plans to establish a 400-strong London crew base on Monday by opening job offers to its 4000 Australian flight attendants.
Despite the threats of industrial action by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, Qantas said it had received positive feedback from its crews to the move.
"We've had a good level of interest in terms of people contacting in and saying, 'How can I apply'," said Michael Sharp, Qantas's head of communications.
"But the period of [formal job applications] doesn't actually begin until next week so we can't make any comment on specifically how many people."
Qantas expects to save about $18 million a year from the move, given it will cut the cost of meal and hotel allowances and allow more flexibility with its crews.
In a bid to soften any potential opposition by British unions, Qantas confirmed it had already signed a memorandum of understanding with the 1.2 million-member union Amicus, which covers flight attendants.
Under the offer, Qantas flight attendants moving to London will get a £12,220 ($31,750) base salary, an estimated £4000 in "sector pay", £580 in allowances and a £7250 annualised lump sum, taking the total to £24,422 ($63,500) a year.
Crews will also get £600 in private medical insurance and an interest-free loan of £1500 to buy a annual London Tube pass.
The FAAA said the offer translated to a 20 to 31 per cent wage cut, given London crews would be be required to work longer hours - up to 240 hours for every eight-week roster, compared with about 180 hours for Australian crews.
The union said that out of the 932 members who attended meetings this month, only two supported Qantas management's plans for a London crew base.
The flight attendants' union opposes Qantas management breaking the current enterprise agreement, which puts a cap of 370 on the number of flight attendants that can be based overseas. It has also objected to the recent hiring of 150 crew on fixed contracts of eight to nine months.
The head of the FAAA's international division, Michael Mijatov, warned those 150 staff would be "put back on the streets" once the London base opened next June.
Qantas confirmed that it had hired "around 100" international flight attendants on fixed-term contracts.
But it countered union comments the crews would be out of a job once the London base was open. Mr Sharp said most of the staff would return to the casual pool of flight attendants from which they had originally come, or to their original jobs within the airline.
Mr Sharp reiterated that no Australian jobs would be lost from the move to London.
But it is understood the FAAA is more concerned about fixed-term staff being used as strikebreakers. The union has ruled out industrial action until its current enterprise bargaining agreement expires on December 18.
In the meantime, the union will lobby against the London base.
Mr Mijatov will fly to London next week to hold talks with Amicus, the International Transport Workers Federation and several other unions.
The International Transport Workers Federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, warned in May that the federation "will do everything that we can to support" the FAAA.
Qantas will meet the FAAA on August 13.
============================================
Qantas ignores union threats
By Scott Rochfort
July 31, 2004
In the face of vocal union opposition, Qantas will press ahead with plans to establish a 400-strong London crew base on Monday by opening job offers to its 4000 Australian flight attendants.
Despite the threats of industrial action by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, Qantas said it had received positive feedback from its crews to the move.
"We've had a good level of interest in terms of people contacting in and saying, 'How can I apply'," said Michael Sharp, Qantas's head of communications.
"But the period of [formal job applications] doesn't actually begin until next week so we can't make any comment on specifically how many people."
Qantas expects to save about $18 million a year from the move, given it will cut the cost of meal and hotel allowances and allow more flexibility with its crews.
In a bid to soften any potential opposition by British unions, Qantas confirmed it had already signed a memorandum of understanding with the 1.2 million-member union Amicus, which covers flight attendants.
Under the offer, Qantas flight attendants moving to London will get a £12,220 ($31,750) base salary, an estimated £4000 in "sector pay", £580 in allowances and a £7250 annualised lump sum, taking the total to £24,422 ($63,500) a year.
Crews will also get £600 in private medical insurance and an interest-free loan of £1500 to buy a annual London Tube pass.
The FAAA said the offer translated to a 20 to 31 per cent wage cut, given London crews would be be required to work longer hours - up to 240 hours for every eight-week roster, compared with about 180 hours for Australian crews.
The union said that out of the 932 members who attended meetings this month, only two supported Qantas management's plans for a London crew base.
The flight attendants' union opposes Qantas management breaking the current enterprise agreement, which puts a cap of 370 on the number of flight attendants that can be based overseas. It has also objected to the recent hiring of 150 crew on fixed contracts of eight to nine months.
The head of the FAAA's international division, Michael Mijatov, warned those 150 staff would be "put back on the streets" once the London base opened next June.
Qantas confirmed that it had hired "around 100" international flight attendants on fixed-term contracts.
But it countered union comments the crews would be out of a job once the London base was open. Mr Sharp said most of the staff would return to the casual pool of flight attendants from which they had originally come, or to their original jobs within the airline.
Mr Sharp reiterated that no Australian jobs would be lost from the move to London.
But it is understood the FAAA is more concerned about fixed-term staff being used as strikebreakers. The union has ruled out industrial action until its current enterprise bargaining agreement expires on December 18.
In the meantime, the union will lobby against the London base.
Mr Mijatov will fly to London next week to hold talks with Amicus, the International Transport Workers Federation and several other unions.
The International Transport Workers Federation's aviation secretary, Shane Enright, warned in May that the federation "will do everything that we can to support" the FAAA.
Qantas will meet the FAAA on August 13.
============================================
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In an airspace near you!
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it countered union comments the crews would be out of a job once the London base was open. Mr Sharp said most of the staff would return to the casual pool of flight attendants from which they had originally come, or to their original jobs within the airline.
Most of the fixed term contractors I know were working outside of the Qantas Group before the offer and will have to find alternative employment after the contract expires.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozspipper,
Correct.
more bullsh@t from Michael Sharp.
To be expected from QF's chief spin doctor.
I met three 11 month contract people recently.
Two were ex Ansett and one was from outside the industry.
Nicer and more deserving people you would never meet.
All three will be looking elsewhere for work in 11 months time if the FAAA are unsuccessfull.
QANTAS.THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE
L2P
Correct.
more bullsh@t from Michael Sharp.
To be expected from QF's chief spin doctor.
I met three 11 month contract people recently.
Two were ex Ansett and one was from outside the industry.
Nicer and more deserving people you would never meet.
All three will be looking elsewhere for work in 11 months time if the FAAA are unsuccessfull.
QANTAS.THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE
L2P
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, I must be management, because I dont 'run with the mob' .... god I wish I was management ..... I could get me some bonuses !!
Was told today, they have already reached over 400 applicants for the base .... after only 5 days of applications open ....that was from a very reliable source .... you WOULD have solidarity, if there werent so many people wanting to take the base .... QF has been very clever in this particular 'divide and conquor' campaign .... good luck
Was told today, they have already reached over 400 applicants for the base .... after only 5 days of applications open ....that was from a very reliable source .... you WOULD have solidarity, if there werent so many people wanting to take the base .... QF has been very clever in this particular 'divide and conquor' campaign .... good luck
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QT
You come across as so miserable and bitter...Like I said before its as if u wish crew, who are choosing not to take the base, fail in some kind of way.
Sad...Actually.... EXTREMELY sad.
I'm surprised you didnt leave years ago..Redundancies have been offered many times now!!!!
The majority of cabin Crew are UNITED and ALOT of people dont want to take sub standard conditions in LHR....WE ARE ONE AND WE ARE MANY!!!
Have a lovely day....
You come across as so miserable and bitter...Like I said before its as if u wish crew, who are choosing not to take the base, fail in some kind of way.
Sad...Actually.... EXTREMELY sad.
I'm surprised you didnt leave years ago..Redundancies have been offered many times now!!!!
The majority of cabin Crew are UNITED and ALOT of people dont want to take sub standard conditions in LHR....WE ARE ONE AND WE ARE MANY!!!
Have a lovely day....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: sydney
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it may appear to be unfair, but business is business and when Qantas flight attendants are the highest payed in the world and the company can see ways to cost save they will.... business is business and what may be immoral will help push the share price up.... 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't been in here for a while, but after reading this 17 or so pages I thought I'd like to add a few thoughts...
I have been with Qantas L/H for a number of years and I have had the opportunity to vote on a number of EBAs. My motives are both personal and altruistic. I voted for better conditions for me, but not at the expense of future employees. If a wage rise for me meant that future F/As wound up on what was essentially a B scale, then I voted no. I think that it is our responsibility to try to negotiate EBAs that our sons and daughters can live on in the future.
The LHR base is a smoke screen to blind us to a critical point in our next EBA negotiation- the removal of the cap on numbers for overseas based crew - currently limited to 370.
If we can not negotiate some kind of limit on numbers of overseas based crew, not only is it unlikely that Australian-based people will ever be able to get fulltime positions as L/H crew with Qantas in the future. It is also unlikely that present fulltime Australian based Qantas L/H cabin crew will maintain their present working conditions, or perhaps even maintain full time employment.
There is already a provision for overseas basings in our existing EBA that will allow Qantas management to achieve the $18million in allowances and accommodation savings they keep referring to - but this didn't fit in with their plan - makes you wonder what their 'plan' is...
Assume no cap is negotiated, and unlimited numbers in overseas bases are ok now.
Qantas management has said that your job is protected for when you return to Australia at the end of your contract with Qantas Cabin Crew UK. Whose job is ever 100% guaranteed?
Picture this scenario: 400 Australian based crew go to LHR to work for on 2 year contract. After a few months of steady overseas recruitment and training, 1000+ local crew are trained. They are earning $18000 p.a. less than the Aussies. Why keep those expensive Aussie crew?
Qantas management decides to terminate the Leave Without Pay provisions after 6 months, as is their perogative according to the agreement: They can terminate the LWOP at any time due to 'operational requirements' (read the fine print).
All these extra overseas based crew (earning much less than their Australian based counterparts) based in LHR, Mumbai? Taiwan? are saving Qantas heaps of money. The Sydney/ Melbourne/ Perth base is no longer financially viable. Qantas management needs to make some crew redundant- there is no provision in the EBA that Qantas must make overseas based crew redundant first. Suddenly the job you were 'guaranteed' would be waiting for you when you got home -doesn't exist!
Worst case scenario? Maybe.
Possible under the terms of these agreements? Definitely.
FAAA & Sick leave.
Paid Sick leave is a right. To be used when you are ill.
I believe (please correct me if I am wrong), it is illegal in Australia to use Sick leave as a tool during Industrial action. It is definitely illegal for the FAAA to be seen to endorse such use and could lead to the FAAA being taken to court.
I think that certain people are over-estimating the number of crew that would work during any industrial action the membership may take, but that is my personal opinion based purely on conversations with MAM casuals and crew that have talked about their interest in the LHR base.
It saddens me that people think that this EBA is a fait accompli.
I love working for Qantas and my dearest wish is that other Australians will always have the opportunity for fulltime employment with Qantas. That is why it is critically important that - to use a bit of Qantas-speak - we ALL look at the Big Picture and fight to maintain our working conditions and through this the working conditions of those who come after us.
Whatever happens in the long run, I'll know that I can still hold my head up, because I tried to make a difference.
"I still call Australia Home"
I have been with Qantas L/H for a number of years and I have had the opportunity to vote on a number of EBAs. My motives are both personal and altruistic. I voted for better conditions for me, but not at the expense of future employees. If a wage rise for me meant that future F/As wound up on what was essentially a B scale, then I voted no. I think that it is our responsibility to try to negotiate EBAs that our sons and daughters can live on in the future.
The LHR base is a smoke screen to blind us to a critical point in our next EBA negotiation- the removal of the cap on numbers for overseas based crew - currently limited to 370.
If we can not negotiate some kind of limit on numbers of overseas based crew, not only is it unlikely that Australian-based people will ever be able to get fulltime positions as L/H crew with Qantas in the future. It is also unlikely that present fulltime Australian based Qantas L/H cabin crew will maintain their present working conditions, or perhaps even maintain full time employment.
There is already a provision for overseas basings in our existing EBA that will allow Qantas management to achieve the $18million in allowances and accommodation savings they keep referring to - but this didn't fit in with their plan - makes you wonder what their 'plan' is...
Assume no cap is negotiated, and unlimited numbers in overseas bases are ok now.
Qantas management has said that your job is protected for when you return to Australia at the end of your contract with Qantas Cabin Crew UK. Whose job is ever 100% guaranteed?
Picture this scenario: 400 Australian based crew go to LHR to work for on 2 year contract. After a few months of steady overseas recruitment and training, 1000+ local crew are trained. They are earning $18000 p.a. less than the Aussies. Why keep those expensive Aussie crew?
Qantas management decides to terminate the Leave Without Pay provisions after 6 months, as is their perogative according to the agreement: They can terminate the LWOP at any time due to 'operational requirements' (read the fine print).
All these extra overseas based crew (earning much less than their Australian based counterparts) based in LHR, Mumbai? Taiwan? are saving Qantas heaps of money. The Sydney/ Melbourne/ Perth base is no longer financially viable. Qantas management needs to make some crew redundant- there is no provision in the EBA that Qantas must make overseas based crew redundant first. Suddenly the job you were 'guaranteed' would be waiting for you when you got home -doesn't exist!
Worst case scenario? Maybe.
Possible under the terms of these agreements? Definitely.
FAAA & Sick leave.
Paid Sick leave is a right. To be used when you are ill.
I believe (please correct me if I am wrong), it is illegal in Australia to use Sick leave as a tool during Industrial action. It is definitely illegal for the FAAA to be seen to endorse such use and could lead to the FAAA being taken to court.
I think that certain people are over-estimating the number of crew that would work during any industrial action the membership may take, but that is my personal opinion based purely on conversations with MAM casuals and crew that have talked about their interest in the LHR base.
It saddens me that people think that this EBA is a fait accompli.
I love working for Qantas and my dearest wish is that other Australians will always have the opportunity for fulltime employment with Qantas. That is why it is critically important that - to use a bit of Qantas-speak - we ALL look at the Big Picture and fight to maintain our working conditions and through this the working conditions of those who come after us.
Whatever happens in the long run, I'll know that I can still hold my head up, because I tried to make a difference.
"I still call Australia Home"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ???
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on you Tarantella. 
It's nice to see someone looking at the big picture for your own future and what the possibilities are for future employees!
Hopefully one day I will be able to live my dream of flying for QF longhaul - in a FULLTIME position!
Stick together! I know for a fact you have the support of the majority of us regional FA's!
It's nice to see someone looking at the big picture for your own future and what the possibilities are for future employees!
Hopefully one day I will be able to live my dream of flying for QF longhaul - in a FULLTIME position!
Stick together! I know for a fact you have the support of the majority of us regional FA's!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: up here
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very close friend of mine just completed her first trip as a QF long haul flight attendant. She is hired by QF on an 11 month contract.
With the exception of about 3 of her colleagues on her 747 crew, the rest behaved like complete cretins, attacking her in a very aggressive and unwelcoming manner, among other things, labelling her as a strikebreaker. Not unexpected and she copped it on the chin.
Now I can understand that nerves are a little raw at the moment, I don't have a problem with that, but to treat a new member of your company, not MAM or ADECO, but your company (not that it should make a shred of difference anyway) with a complete lack of respect or decency does nothing but highlight how selfish, bitter and downright nasty some of you have become.
I understand the current climate has the potential to lead to a decline in your conditions, but in this case your ire is completely misdirected. Your petty attitudes in this case will quite likely lead to the formation of two very distinct types of crew.
One, who are trying their best to maintain the conditions they currently enjoy, and another, who because of the aggresive treatment of the latter, wont give a toss about said conditions and will be quite happy to work through any industrial action because, as is being made quite clear to them every day at work, they are not welcome and they don't have a future with Qantas. Why should they care?
This friend of mine has many years of flying experience, is fresh and vital and keen to do a great job. You are lucky to have her.
It seems management aren't the only ones lacking any sense of decency. I would hope those involved would feel ashamed of themselves if they knew how they made her feel, however I doubt that emotion would even be present in their mental vocabulary.
With the exception of about 3 of her colleagues on her 747 crew, the rest behaved like complete cretins, attacking her in a very aggressive and unwelcoming manner, among other things, labelling her as a strikebreaker. Not unexpected and she copped it on the chin.
Now I can understand that nerves are a little raw at the moment, I don't have a problem with that, but to treat a new member of your company, not MAM or ADECO, but your company (not that it should make a shred of difference anyway) with a complete lack of respect or decency does nothing but highlight how selfish, bitter and downright nasty some of you have become.
I understand the current climate has the potential to lead to a decline in your conditions, but in this case your ire is completely misdirected. Your petty attitudes in this case will quite likely lead to the formation of two very distinct types of crew.
One, who are trying their best to maintain the conditions they currently enjoy, and another, who because of the aggresive treatment of the latter, wont give a toss about said conditions and will be quite happy to work through any industrial action because, as is being made quite clear to them every day at work, they are not welcome and they don't have a future with Qantas. Why should they care?
This friend of mine has many years of flying experience, is fresh and vital and keen to do a great job. You are lucky to have her.
It seems management aren't the only ones lacking any sense of decency. I would hope those involved would feel ashamed of themselves if they knew how they made her feel, however I doubt that emotion would even be present in their mental vocabulary.
Last edited by airport reserve; 3rd Aug 2004 at 01:25.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airport_reserve,
Whilst I would never excuse the behaviour of cretins such as the ones your friend encountered on her first trip, I'm afraid she will need to get a thicker skin and toughen up! This is a very contentious issue amongst crew and will no doubt be an open and very sore wound for quite some time yet.
Your friend is lucky that there were three others there who were civilised to her, as I'm sure her trip would have been a lot worse had all of them behaved so appallingly.
Tarantella summed the situation up beautifully in her post a couple ahead of this one.
Tread carefully.
SG
Whilst I would never excuse the behaviour of cretins such as the ones your friend encountered on her first trip, I'm afraid she will need to get a thicker skin and toughen up! This is a very contentious issue amongst crew and will no doubt be an open and very sore wound for quite some time yet.
Your friend is lucky that there were three others there who were civilised to her, as I'm sure her trip would have been a lot worse had all of them behaved so appallingly.
Tarantella summed the situation up beautifully in her post a couple ahead of this one.
Tread carefully.
SG
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: God`s Country
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Haul Pay
Standard,
I take exception to your assertion that Qf Crew are the highest paid in the world.This may have been true ten years ago,but certainly not now.QF Crew now rank about 6th or 7th on a comparative pay scale.Conversations with crew from other airlines indicate that Cathay,JAL,BA are three carriers that earn salaries at least ten to fifteen percent higher than QF.These three carriers also have more crew on a 747.400 than QF.
As far as the QF share price is concerned......it languishes at around $A3.40 because Geoff Dixon continually talks it down.If Dixon were a little more positive the price would more reflect QF`s profit(the highest of any airline in the world) and its asset backing.As a shareholder(Purchased thru the market)I find his comments most unhelpful.
I take exception to your assertion that Qf Crew are the highest paid in the world.This may have been true ten years ago,but certainly not now.QF Crew now rank about 6th or 7th on a comparative pay scale.Conversations with crew from other airlines indicate that Cathay,JAL,BA are three carriers that earn salaries at least ten to fifteen percent higher than QF.These three carriers also have more crew on a 747.400 than QF.
As far as the QF share price is concerned......it languishes at around $A3.40 because Geoff Dixon continually talks it down.If Dixon were a little more positive the price would more reflect QF`s profit(the highest of any airline in the world) and its asset backing.As a shareholder(Purchased thru the market)I find his comments most unhelpful.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: up here
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SydGirl
Her skin is plenty thick and it would take more than a forgetable crew to ruin her day. In fact, I think she found the whole thing fairly amusing as it highlighted the true colours of QF's finest.
That doesn't mean she wasn't entitled to feel a little disappointed.
The earlier post you refered to is well put together, if not slightly idealistic. People are still under the impression the cap on foreign bases is up for a negotiation. It was negotiated in your last EBA.
If you want the cap back, I'm sure management will listen, but you had want to bring some pretty attractive bargaining tools to the table. You aren't going to get that one back without paying for it dearly. So, with that in mind, what will the union be prepared to barter away this time? Seniority? Whilst the members would never let that puppy go, it will be a current condition of that magnitude required to unbake this cake.
Everyones 'dearest wish' is that the full time jobs come rolling in, conditions remain nice and plump and nobody misses out on anything. That would be super. I had a dearest wish. That a once proud airilne wasn't lead down the path to oblivion. That would have been super too.
Her skin is plenty thick and it would take more than a forgetable crew to ruin her day. In fact, I think she found the whole thing fairly amusing as it highlighted the true colours of QF's finest.
That doesn't mean she wasn't entitled to feel a little disappointed.
The earlier post you refered to is well put together, if not slightly idealistic. People are still under the impression the cap on foreign bases is up for a negotiation. It was negotiated in your last EBA.
If you want the cap back, I'm sure management will listen, but you had want to bring some pretty attractive bargaining tools to the table. You aren't going to get that one back without paying for it dearly. So, with that in mind, what will the union be prepared to barter away this time? Seniority? Whilst the members would never let that puppy go, it will be a current condition of that magnitude required to unbake this cake.
Everyones 'dearest wish' is that the full time jobs come rolling in, conditions remain nice and plump and nobody misses out on anything. That would be super. I had a dearest wish. That a once proud airilne wasn't lead down the path to oblivion. That would have been super too.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport reserve
I believe that the cap is a negotiable item come every EBA bargaining period...like it always has been...The spin doctors at QF would have everyone believe that because a YES vote got through that meant that we agreed to the cap expiring come this Dec...Not true!!!...It was a negotiable item amongst all the other things...That's my understanding and the followed up research I did.
Industrially this whole thing is a minefield...QF are behaving like arrogant dictators....But they should be very careful, because like MacBeth, being over ambitious can have negative consequences.
As for your friend, well its not nice to be treated in that manner no matter what job you start...Its just unfair to her that she has been employed during this whole LHR base fiasco...Again, I dont support the actions of those who treated her like that.
I believe that the cap is a negotiable item come every EBA bargaining period...like it always has been...The spin doctors at QF would have everyone believe that because a YES vote got through that meant that we agreed to the cap expiring come this Dec...Not true!!!...It was a negotiable item amongst all the other things...That's my understanding and the followed up research I did.
Industrially this whole thing is a minefield...QF are behaving like arrogant dictators....But they should be very careful, because like MacBeth, being over ambitious can have negative consequences.
As for your friend, well its not nice to be treated in that manner no matter what job you start...Its just unfair to her that she has been employed during this whole LHR base fiasco...Again, I dont support the actions of those who treated her like that.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well It's nice to be thought of as idealistic. Please don't mistake it for naivety.
I'm sorry to hear that your friend had such a terrible trip: it is certainly not indicative of the majority of flight attendants out there in QF land.
All flight attendants employed here in Australia as long haul crew for QF have the right to join the union. As members of the FAAA, they are under no obligation to fly over stop work meetings during our EBA negotiation.
There's the key word: negotiation...
All things are negotiable in the EBA- and that includes the cap.
All of the new fixed termers are a welcome addition. In my 'ideal' world at the end of their term, they will be offered full-time employment here in Australia because as a Union, ALL our membership fought hard to ensure that Australian Jobs stay here in Australia - where they belong.
the enemy is not other cabin crew - it's an immoral management that are willing to sell our jobs to the lowest bidder, to line their own pockets with bonuses.
It's ALL about the Cap.
I'm sorry to hear that your friend had such a terrible trip: it is certainly not indicative of the majority of flight attendants out there in QF land.
All flight attendants employed here in Australia as long haul crew for QF have the right to join the union. As members of the FAAA, they are under no obligation to fly over stop work meetings during our EBA negotiation.
There's the key word: negotiation...
All things are negotiable in the EBA- and that includes the cap.
All of the new fixed termers are a welcome addition. In my 'ideal' world at the end of their term, they will be offered full-time employment here in Australia because as a Union, ALL our membership fought hard to ensure that Australian Jobs stay here in Australia - where they belong.
the enemy is not other cabin crew - it's an immoral management that are willing to sell our jobs to the lowest bidder, to line their own pockets with bonuses.
It's ALL about the Cap.
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WORK RULES FOR THE PROPOSED LONDON BASE
WORK RULES FOR THE PROPOSED LONDON BASE
The Basics:
• Minimum pattern gap is 3 days
• 18 X days per roster period
• No seniority based bid system. Work allocated by the company
• Rosters built up to 240 hours per 56 day period
• No extra payment until 240 hours exceeded
• Airport Standbys - 8 hours planned up to 12 hours Unplanned
• Non Airport standbys - 12 hours
• All patterns planned up to 17 hours and unplanned up to 20 hours
• No limit on the number of sectors in a duty
• Non-flying duties up to 12 hours
SLIP TIMES
• No double slip provision as contained in our EBA.
• Slip following a long range duty or flight up to 24 hours – 20 hours rest and in unplanned situations 17 hours rest.
REST PERIODS AT HOME BASE
• 2 days away - 18 hours rest and unplanned 15 hours
• 3 days away - 20 hours rest and unplanned 18 hours
• 4 days or more away – 36 hours rest and unplanned 18 hours
OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS
• Crew must provide a telephone and email contact
• Reserve will form part of a 56 day roster up to 4 weeks block
• Hours not worked by flight attendants can be recovered on “A” days and “X” days up until the end of the next roster period
Whilst this list is not exhaustive it provides an insight into the type of conditions that the company has in its sights for all Long Haul crew unless we resist the breaking of the CAP, and the employment of Australian crew outside of our EBA.
The Basics:
• Minimum pattern gap is 3 days
• 18 X days per roster period
• No seniority based bid system. Work allocated by the company
• Rosters built up to 240 hours per 56 day period
• No extra payment until 240 hours exceeded
• Airport Standbys - 8 hours planned up to 12 hours Unplanned
• Non Airport standbys - 12 hours
• All patterns planned up to 17 hours and unplanned up to 20 hours
• No limit on the number of sectors in a duty
• Non-flying duties up to 12 hours
SLIP TIMES
• No double slip provision as contained in our EBA.
• Slip following a long range duty or flight up to 24 hours – 20 hours rest and in unplanned situations 17 hours rest.
REST PERIODS AT HOME BASE
• 2 days away - 18 hours rest and unplanned 15 hours
• 3 days away - 20 hours rest and unplanned 18 hours
• 4 days or more away – 36 hours rest and unplanned 18 hours
OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS
• Crew must provide a telephone and email contact
• Reserve will form part of a 56 day roster up to 4 weeks block
• Hours not worked by flight attendants can be recovered on “A” days and “X” days up until the end of the next roster period
Whilst this list is not exhaustive it provides an insight into the type of conditions that the company has in its sights for all Long Haul crew unless we resist the breaking of the CAP, and the employment of Australian crew outside of our EBA.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: up here
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tarantella
Nothing wrong with idealism, and I made no assumptions re naivete. As I said a well put together post that got your point across well.
I guess my point was that EBA's are very tit for tat. Having been through my fair share in the past, very little is gained without relinquishing something. You know what I mean, 'I'll give you one of these if I can have two of those'
I suspect that will be very much on the minds of management, and mindful of the fact that the cap is very much a priority for you, if they are prepared to negotiate on that one at all, it wont come cheaply.
I just wondered what would be considered an acceptable trade off. What will the union and its members consider an acceptable loss?
Nothing wrong with idealism, and I made no assumptions re naivete. As I said a well put together post that got your point across well.
I guess my point was that EBA's are very tit for tat. Having been through my fair share in the past, very little is gained without relinquishing something. You know what I mean, 'I'll give you one of these if I can have two of those'
I suspect that will be very much on the minds of management, and mindful of the fact that the cap is very much a priority for you, if they are prepared to negotiate on that one at all, it wont come cheaply.
I just wondered what would be considered an acceptable trade off. What will the union and its members consider an acceptable loss?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oztraylia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jettesen,
QF operate 3 daily flights to london, and are about to start tri weekly via HKG.
VS are to start with a daily 346.
Its not as if QF and BA are the only airlines servicing the UK-AUST route there are something like 26 airlines competing on the route. One daily 346 isnt going to kill QF.
Isnt it ironic that in a couple of days QF will be launching their new 10million dollar advert - the new I still call australia home series. Lucky they are the spirit of Australia, coz shortly thats going to be the thing about them that is australian !
Just wondering with the UK union. What is the Amicus union like ? ive never heard of them - Ive heard of BASSA and CC89. I thought it was the employees choice which union (if any) they choose.
Is there a reason why QF FAs cannot remain members of the FAAA while in London ? From what ive read earlier UA LON based staff are still members of their USA based union.
If the LON base does go ahead I hope the FAAA can make the agreement look something like the UA outline.
Goodluck Guys - Keep emailing Mr Latham and Mr Anderson (one of the reasons for protecting QF on the LAX run is because of Australian Jobs isnt it ?)
QF operate 3 daily flights to london, and are about to start tri weekly via HKG.
VS are to start with a daily 346.
Its not as if QF and BA are the only airlines servicing the UK-AUST route there are something like 26 airlines competing on the route. One daily 346 isnt going to kill QF.
Isnt it ironic that in a couple of days QF will be launching their new 10million dollar advert - the new I still call australia home series. Lucky they are the spirit of Australia, coz shortly thats going to be the thing about them that is australian !
Just wondering with the UK union. What is the Amicus union like ? ive never heard of them - Ive heard of BASSA and CC89. I thought it was the employees choice which union (if any) they choose.
Is there a reason why QF FAs cannot remain members of the FAAA while in London ? From what ive read earlier UA LON based staff are still members of their USA based union.
If the LON base does go ahead I hope the FAAA can make the agreement look something like the UA outline.
Goodluck Guys - Keep emailing Mr Latham and Mr Anderson (one of the reasons for protecting QF on the LAX run is because of Australian Jobs isnt it ?)
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ascent,
I 'think' its because the crew will not be protected under the same EBA as Australian crew as they don't actually work for Qantas but a separate company.
You are right United crew work under identical conditions whether based in London or San Francisco. The Europe base crew also do not do ALL of the flying from that base which at least gives a chance to some, all be it v. senior crew, the chance to get to all destinations in the network.
If Qantas had said they were opening a base a there would be 2 or 3 London based crew on each flight it may have been more accepted.
The way they are doing it is disgraceful and will be fought by the majority of crew.
I 'think' its because the crew will not be protected under the same EBA as Australian crew as they don't actually work for Qantas but a separate company.
You are right United crew work under identical conditions whether based in London or San Francisco. The Europe base crew also do not do ALL of the flying from that base which at least gives a chance to some, all be it v. senior crew, the chance to get to all destinations in the network.
If Qantas had said they were opening a base a there would be 2 or 3 London based crew on each flight it may have been more accepted.
The way they are doing it is disgraceful and will be fought by the majority of crew.