Cabin crew roles and pay rates

[Mal]

Yep. Some FAs have cracked under pressure. Which is bad, and the reason why airline staff go through certain training and are vetted via other means.

 

[Simo]

Yep. Some FAs have cracked under pressure. Which is bad, and the reason why airline staff go through certain training and are vetted via other means.

I guess it can be very hard to know how anyone will react until they are in the actual situation.

I have worked with staff and when the pressure gets to hard they do the strangest things.

 

[pauly7]

I guess it can be very hard to know how anyone will react until they are in the actual situation.

I have worked with staff and when the pressure gets to hard they do the strangest things.

In depth Psych analysis (not the run of the mill usual corporate test we all have to do) can give you a predictive measure... Essentially people actually can 'flip' at a certain point and their strengths can actually 180 and become their biggest weakness.

It's a fascinating area of Psych!

Back OT though, the comment before about apparently JetConnect staff crewing A380 flights could explain why I've had such amazing FA experiences on the A380 flights! Didn't know that was the case.

 

[Rox]

Essentially people actually can 'flip' at a certain point and their strengths can actually 180 and become their biggest weakness.

Out of curiosity, does the reverse also happen?

 

[pauly7]

Out of curiosity, does the reverse also happen?

Absolutely. The trick is obviously training and getting people to operate consistently and well across all scenarios. Easier said than done!

Changing environments and pressures can lead to all sorts of things, loads of everyday examples....think back to high school (a controlled environment) - the heroes who were head prefect/captains etc quite often belly flop in the real world and the quieter kids are the ones that really excel....

 

[JohnK]

I was under the impression that cabin crew/flight attendants were on decent salaries/wages with lots of benefits. Especially the ones on international rosters.

I have not seen/heard anything to make me change that opinion.

 

[medhead]

Re: Ask The Pilot

The 'Asian airline example' includes airlines such as SQ and CX that are (respectively) regarded by many passengers as the world's best airline (SQ) and which has Australian and UK flight crew along with very well trained cabin crew (CX).

QF may not want to emulate the 'Asian airline example' but this will be to its cost. I was speaking recently to a senior businessman based in SYD, who when I said 'I gave QF about 10 years before it ceases international flights' his response was 'I give them five.'

The airline industry today (with the exception of parts of Africa) is the safest it has ever been yet passenger numbers have increased a lot in the last 20 to 30 years due to cheap fares, increased flight choices, a real rise in incomes and a growing Australian preference for overseas holidays. If QF International wants to ignore this, well fine - but it will go out of business.

It's great that in real terms I can fly to Europe for far less $A than 35 years ago: there's no evidence to suggest that safety has been compromised.

The 'Asian airline example' is an outstanding one that has led to QF being forced to try to meet the competition, not very successfully. You won't find me on a QF flight to MNL if I can help it: I much prefer 'Asia's first', PR, which by the way also has a good safety record and which is now effectively controlled by a respected and large Filipino conglomerate, San Miguel Corporation (manufacturer of the eponymos Pale Pilsen and Pale Pilsen Light that many Australians are growing to enjoy) and which once some years ago owned National Foods in Oz (selling out at a decent profit).

Pretty young cabin crew might be desired by passengers and might give good results in surveys. That does make the cabin crew safer, which was the point.

 

[Melburnian1]

I agree JohnK, especially in light of how international flights between a majority of nations are now the safest they've ever been considering the much greater numbers carried today compared with 30 or 40 years ago. I assume that those who have argued against 'third world' cabin crew being employed never travel on any low cost carrier worldwide or any airline in developing countries. These travellers must be more avid private car, train, bus, taxi, tuk-tuk, tricycle and jeepney users than even I am.

 

[mickeyc747]

I was under the impression that cabin crew/flight attendants were on decent salaries/wages with lots of benefits. Especially the ones on international rosters.

I have not seen/heard anything to make me change that opinion.

Qantas long haul is split into 2 divisions in Australia Qantas Airways Limited and QF Cabin Crew Australia Pty Ltd let alone the off shore of Jet Connect and not mention the labor hire. Casuals do not get the benefit the long term staff do. Qantas Airways Limited Staff that work on the A380's are on temporary transfer to QF Cabin Crew Australia Pty Ltd.

 

[mickeyc747]

I was under the impression that cabin crew/flight attendants were on decent salaries/wages with lots of benefits. Especially the ones on international rosters.

I have not seen/heard anything to make me change that opinion.

Also a Qantas Airways Limited F/A on temp transfer to QF Cabin Crew is paid $35 000 a year more than an employee of QF Cabin Crew as per page 93 of their EBA.

 

[JessicaTam]

Yep. Some FAs have cracked under pressure. Which is bad, and the reason why airline staff go through certain training and are vetted via other means.

The QF32 book is worth a read. The CSM was singled out as one of the main reasons the flight crew could do their job (fly the plane). They didn't have to worry about the pax, because they were in such capable (experienced) hands.

I would take ability over looks/age any day.

 

[JohnK]

Also a Qantas Airways Limited F/A on temp transfer to QF Cabin Crew is paid $35 000 a year more than an employee of QF Cabin Crew as per page 93 of their EBA.

I was totally stupid building up a career in IT the past 28 years.

I should have chosen a career as a flight attendant.

 

[flying_double]

To the OP, do you seriously believe that PR has a good safety record? It was banned from flying to any European Union country for three years because of questionable safety standards. Hardly a glowing recommendation vs Qantas.


Have a look at photos of recent emergency evacuations of CX and OZ flights and you'll see passengers walking away from these planes with hand luggage, wheelie bags etc. What does this say about the safety standards of cabin crew that operated these services? If I'm in an emergency, I don't want to die because the cabin crew allowed other passengers to waste precious seconds collecting their LV duffle bags and duty free alcohol before disembarking - I want confident, competent cabin crew that can drive the best outcome possible. Which in my view requires remuneration that acknowledges and rewards these competencies. I strongly believe in the old saying, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".


But I almost forgot, this is 21st century capitalist Australia after all, where we should belt each other down to ensure we don't end up on the bottom - I work hard and don't get paid enough, so why do they get paid so much, they're not smart and don't work very hard and get to travel all year. Sadly a by-product of a society which likes to pretend to be socially minded, but in reality is just looking out for one person, "me".

Well, I hope the cabin crew are capable of looking out for YOU and ME in an emergency!

 

[Melburnian1]

flying_double, PR was caught by a general ban on Filipino airlines flying to the European Union because the latter was concerned about regulation of airline safety in Philippines (as, if I recall, it was about Indonesia). It wasn't a commentary about PR in particular, which is a long established airline that in recent years has had a very good safety record. The EU's recent review has reaffirmed that PR passes the same tests that QF and other airlines must to be allowed to fly to the EU. In Indonesia, GA was caught by a similar directive but can now fly to Europe. Most other Indonesian airlines still cannot.

QF has had a few incidents. 1999 at Bangkok, the 2008 744 incident where the oxygen tank exploded and some oxygen masks in the passenger cabin failed to properly deploy, the October 2012 incident over Darwin where two QF planes came within 250 metres of collision - not a lot of room for further error - and the 2008 towing accident at Avalon are a non-exhaustive list. Of course, there'll be a multitude of causes, but QF doesn't greatly inspire me in terms of safety. Having said that, PR, QF or a host of other airlines are generally going to get us where we want to go safely.

Better to be in a 'capitalist' country that encourages innovation and (in sectors such as the airline industry) competition than in a communist or socialist society that does not.

The statistics show that aviation in and between most nations is very safe. Deriding what some call 'third world' airline crews is a very clever way to try to preserve wages and especially allowances and other niceties that are way above what airlines in many other nations consider as fair remuneration. The criticism is a bit demeaning to airline staff in such nations as the critics imply that the staff or their trainers, or the airline managements, aren't as 'competent' or 'trustworthy' as a so-called first-world airline's such as QF.

The bottom line is that QF and VA aren't making any meaningful money, so they both need very patient shareholders (for whom a dividend is not in sight) or a white knight. Niether may survive (especially QF International, and perhaps Virgin in both spheres) in the long term unless the bankers continue to be exceedingly generous and do not expect to be paid back.

 

[mickeyc747]

flying_double, PR was caught by a general ban on Filipino airlines flying to the European Union because the latter was concerned about regulation of airline safety in Philippines (as, if I recall, it was about Indonesia). It wasn't a commentary about PR in particular, which is a long established airline that in recent years has had a very good safety record. The EU's recent review has reaffirmed that PR passes the same tests that QF and other airlines must to be allowed to fly to the EU. In Indonesia, GA was caught by a similar directive but can now fly to Europe. Most other Indonesian airlines still cannot.

QF has had a few incidents. 1999 at Bangkok, the 2008 744 incident where the oxygen tank exploded and some oxygen masks in the passenger cabin failed to properly deploy, the October 2012 incident over Darwin where two QF planes came within 250 metres of collision - not a lot of room for further error - and the 2008 towing accident at Avalon are a non-exhaustive list. Of course, there'll be a multitude of causes, but QF doesn't greatly inspire me in terms of safety. Having said that, PR, QF or a host of other airlines are generally going to get us where we want to go safely.

Better to be in a 'capitalist' country that encourages innovation and (in sectors such as the airline industry) competition than in a communist or socialist society that does not.

The statistics show that aviation in and between most nations is very safe. Deriding what some call 'third world' airline crews is a very clever way to try to preserve wages and especially allowances and other niceties that are way above what airlines in many other nations consider as fair remuneration. The criticism is a bit demeaning to airline staff in such nations as the critics imply that the staff or their trainers, or the airline managements, aren't as 'competent' as a so-called first-world airline's such as QF.

The bottom line is that QF and VA aren't making any meaningful money, so they both need very patient shareholders (for whom a dividend is not in sight) or a white knight.

As Pam Ann says then there was the bus incident lets round it off to an even 10.

 

[flying_double]

So there were endemic problems in Philippine aviation, not just PR? Does that mean similar endemic problems could arise here in Australia over time through actions which cut costs back to the bone, forcing good people out of the industry when the take home pay they receive is insufficient to pay basic living expenses. Or airlines just employ fewer people, getting 'productivity efficiencies' from their downsized but overworked work forces (ie a lot more work for each person for a bit more pay because the alternative is no job at all).


Cabin crew perform a safety role, a service role, an education role, a brand ambassador role, day in, day out. Paying them adequately (at an Australian standard) for the job they do isn't unreasonable. If driving down wages is the best demonstration of capitalist 'innovation' that our country's airline managers can come up with, quite frankly the industry is stuffed!

 

[nlagalle]

QF has had a few incidents. 1999 at Bangkok, the 2008 744 incident where the oxygen tank exploded and some oxygen masks in the passenger cabin failed to properly deploy, the October 2012 incident over Darwin where two QF planes came within 250 metres of collision - not a lot of room for further error - and the 2008 towing accident at Avalon are a non-exhaustive list. Of course, there'll be a multitude of causes, but QF doesn't greatly inspire me in terms of safety. Having said that, PR, QF or a host of other airlines are generally going to get us where we want to go safely.

If you are going to quote incidents (as opposed to accidents) perhaps you should know that the the 744 Oxygen tank explosion was not any fault of Qantas - ask jb747 he was the captain on that flight) and i am pretty sure the near miss was also contributed to ATC as well. And i am not sure how a towing accident (happens to everyone, just ask Virgin) is affecting your safety. Seems to me you haven't opened your eye properly to the world of aviation. Qantas does have a good safety record, despite what you write or may think.

 

[anat0l]

To the OP, do you seriously believe that PR has a good safety record? It was banned from flying to any European Union country for three years because of questionable safety standards. Hardly a glowing recommendation vs Qantas.


Have a look at photos of recent emergency evacuations of CX and OZ flights and you'll see passengers walking away from these planes with hand luggage, wheelie bags etc. What does this say about the safety standards of cabin crew that operated these services? If I'm in an emergency, I don't want to die because the cabin crew allowed other passengers to waste precious seconds collecting their LV duffle bags and duty free alcohol before disembarking - I want confident, competent cabin crew that can drive the best outcome possible. Which in my view requires remuneration that acknowledges and rewards these competencies. I strongly believe in the old saying, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".


But I almost forgot, this is 21st century capitalist Australia after all, where we should belt each other down to ensure we don't end up on the bottom - I work hard and don't get paid enough, so why do they get paid so much, they're not smart and don't work very hard and get to travel all year. Sadly a by-product of a society which likes to pretend to be socially minded, but in reality is just looking out for one person, "me".

Well, I hope the cabin crew are capable of looking out for YOU and ME in an emergency!

flying_double, PR was caught by a general ban on Filipino airlines flying to the European Union because the latter was concerned about regulation of airline safety in Philippines (as, if I recall, it was about Indonesia). It wasn't a commentary about PR in particular, which is a long established airline that in recent years has had a very good safety record. The EU's recent review has reaffirmed that PR passes the same tests that QF and other airlines must to be allowed to fly to the EU. In Indonesia, GA was caught by a similar directive but can now fly to Europe. Most other Indonesian airlines still cannot.

QF has had a few incidents. 1999 at Bangkok, the 2008 744 incident where the oxygen tank exploded and some oxygen masks in the passenger cabin failed to properly deploy, the October 2012 incident over Darwin where two QF planes came within 250 metres of collision - not a lot of room for further error - and the 2008 towing accident at Avalon are a non-exhaustive list. Of course, there'll be a multitude of causes, but QF doesn't greatly inspire me in terms of safety. Having said that, PR, QF or a host of other airlines are generally going to get us where we want to go safely.

Better to be in a 'capitalist' country that encourages innovation and (in sectors such as the airline industry) competition than in a communist or socialist society that does not.

The statistics show that aviation in and between most nations is very safe. Deriding what some call 'third world' airline crews is a very clever way to try to preserve wages and especially allowances and other niceties that are way above what airlines in many other nations consider as fair remuneration. The criticism is a bit demeaning to airline staff in such nations as the critics imply that the staff or their trainers, or the airline managements, aren't as 'competent' or 'trustworthy' as a so-called first-world airline's such as QF.

The bottom line is that QF and VA aren't making any meaningful money, so they both need very patient shareholders (for whom a dividend is not in sight) or a white knight. Niether may survive (especially QF International, and perhaps Virgin in both spheres) in the long term unless the bankers continue to be exceedingly generous and do not expect to be paid back.

These two arguments go off on a little tangent. The original argument is talking about cabin crew, not flight crew. There's a good thread in saying that the overall safety is indicative of a company wide culture, but that's probably where it stops.

Again, who really cares what the crew are. The point is they must be competent, they must have a safety-oriented culture, they must be able to respond aptly in an emergency.

As for being paid, a lot of that is also a function of the host country and regulation, and the cost of living. To say that someone in Thailand is paid less than an equivalent crew in Australia, at face value, is not comparing apples and apples. It's about the standard of living in Thailand compared to that in Australia. (This crosses a lot with the debate on Jetstar operating tag flights in Australia which are crewed by international cabin crew). This considerably complicates the objective discussion of whether crew in Australia are overpaid or not.

Key evidence cases you can really uphold are when you hear accounts from passengers in incidents that talk of the crew. Since Qantas in naturally the tall poppy in Australian media, we hear a lot about it's failures, but also hear a lot about, say, QF30 and QF32, where many passengers praised the actions of the cabin crew, especially in keeping people calm.

I'm sure there are other incidents, but certainly you don't hear a lot more of this kind of praise for other airlines in Australia but that's purely an Australian media thing. (In the country where those airlines are incorporated, I'm sure the media has the same field day on them for similar reasons).

And incidents like the CX or OZ where you see pax escaping with bags is not necessarily the crew's fault per se. Some pax are just that selfish and ignorant of the safety directives. A crew member has to make a difficult decision as to what will impede / slow down an evacuation more - letting an errant pax through, seizing an errant pax's baggage, and/or the resulting arguments (and possible physical altercation between the pax and the crew member).

One thing is for sure: we do not pay our crew (and we should not review wages based on) to be mere trolley dollies. Anyone who argues as such has completely missed the point. That includes Michael O'Leary.

Also, the mere fact that air incidents are down significantly compared to times gone by is no reason to be so confident as to assume and be complacent. Safety has improved through a conscious movement and specific procedures. It just didn't "happen". We can't take that for granted.

 

[mannej]

QF has had a few incidents. 1999 at Bangkok, the 2008 744 incident where the oxygen tank exploded and some oxygen masks in the passenger cabin failed to properly deploy, the October 2012 incident over Darwin where two QF planes came within 250 metres of collision - not a lot of room for further error - and the 2008 towing accident at Avalon are a non-exhaustive list. Of course, there'll be a multitude of causes, but QF doesn't greatly inspire me in terms of safety. Having said that, PR, QF or a host of other airlines are generally going to get us where we want to go safely.

Are you commenting on these incidents with any form of expertise, or just as an armchair critic?

Out of the 2 incidents you list (QF1, QF30), lets not forget QF32 and QF72. There is one common thing (it may be luck), but out of those 4 incidents there has not been a single fatality. QF1 is the only one that you can attribute that a lapse in operating procedures, however the 30, 32 and 72 could have ended much worse if it weren't for the actions of the crew.
Also, what relevance does a towing accident at AVV have when it is mainly used as a maintenance location?
I think you may want to communicate with some of the more knowledgeable members on the board regarding the safety of some of the airlines you mention (PR, SQ etc), as I have the feeling that there is more knowledge there.
With all respect, based on your first paragraph, I liken PR similar to GA in terms of the safety and their history...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

melburnian1... thanks for starting the new thread.

i take issue with your comments on size/weight proportion. to me it makes no difference. cabin crew undertake yearly refresher courses in training... if they don't pass they can't fly. weight is not an issue.

however... that's assuming they are trained to Australian standards. if I have a foreign crew member effectively contracted from another country... how to I know corners have not been cut in the same way as their wages?