I have a theory on that one. I think in this case it's largely caused by the way Qantas Group market themselves. I get that QF and JQ are not the same beast, but given the tight level of integration between the two they're basically Siamese twins in most people's minds. I'll leave you to speculate as to which is the evil twin.
QF has sunk an enormous amount of money tapping into people's patriotic spirit in this country. It brands itself as "The Spirit of Australia" and has children singing "I still call Australia home" in front of symbols of Australia. Heck, it even paints a kangaroo on the plane. So we like to think of it as being in the Australian spirit. That it will employ Aussies under Aussie conditions and give everyone a fair go. But of course, the reality is that it's just another big business and it would market to us any way that will get our dollars. So when we get a peak behind the curtain (like is happening now) and we discover that all that Australian spirit stuff is just marketing spin, we're shocked. Just shocked.
Of course their CEO has been indicating for quite some time that all this stuff was going on and that QF considers it to be the future of the business. But somehow we're still drawn in by that alluring image of those children, standing in the Australian desert, proudly singing "I still call Australia home"...
As if to imply that QF's direct home competitor is better in this respect? "Well at least they're not boasting to be the Spirit of Australia." Oh, woo hoo then to holier than thou....
If you want to have a fully Australian airline with all Australian operations from top to bottom, that is economically impossible (unless you can convince some of them to work for peanuts, which is impossible, too). Are you going to pay Australians to live away from their loved ones on the other side of the globe so that they can service aircraft in London so you can be assured that an Australian is servicing Qantas aircraft, even on the other side of the world? Are you prepared to pay an appreciable premium for it (and let's admit, even if QF only focused on making break even overall, there would still need to be an increase in fares)?
The fine line between what should be left for off-shore and what should remain in Australia is not well known. The public is being led only on a trajectory or trend, not the whole graph. In saying that, we can ascertain only three things:
- Not all staff working for Qantas are Australians;
- There are Australians working for Qantas; and
- There are staff who do work for Qantas (e.g. in maintenance, ground servicing, catering, etc.) who are both non-Qantas and non-Australian.
In any case, this is not the point of the whole thread. The thread is talking about Jetstar exploiting cabin crew, in terms of not paying them enough and working 20 hours shifts (well over feasible working limits) and providing inadequate rest opportunities. There's probably some merit in all of those claims, after hearing someone here explain that JQ pilots are pretty strapped themselves, so I can imagine the same for JQ staff. With the exception of SYD/HNL, JQ don't operate any ultra longhaul sectors, so there's no need for a shift to be stretched to 20 hours unless there's a massive delay, and by that time why would you as staff agree to do that unless there are factors why it's better to accept the shift than to claim time out (e.g. if you pass up a shift due to being tired, you don't get paid, or if you decide to pass on a shift which you are operating but then gets delayed, same thing...). That could be the source of the problem (i.e. in theory, if you can't work, don't, but you won't get paid = choosing between two evils; the system is penalising you even though you're doing the safe thing.)
As for pay, why should QF pay crew exactly the same as an Australian irrespective of the local conditions? Does it make everything feel more equitable, or nicer? The fact that the Thai crew are being paid at a rate commensurate to their home country (or better) is not exploitation. Otherwise, let's start a debate about goods made in Chinese sweatshops (not to mention how much profit the company reaps in the retail sale of a cheaply manufactured product).
