Qantas Cabin Crew or Pampered Celebrities?

"Jim Davis Sr." wrote in message
...

"Raffi Balmanoukian" a
wrote in message
news:BC472A21.1FE81%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...
in article , matt weber at
wrote on 2/4/04 10:19 PM:

O

LONG waits for hotel rooms with fridges in Los Angeles; and

Because hotel rooms with fridges are very rare in the USA (even in 5
star accomodation)...


No. They are extremely common - they just are usually full of
overpriced
mini-bar booze with no room for your own stuff.

They're very common in my travels. I'm at a Hampton Inn right now with
Ref.
& Microwave. Holiday Inn Express also has them in most rooms. It seems
to
be more of a "Middle Class" thing. 5 Stars & Cheapies usually don't have
them.

Although the subject heading is about cabin crew rather than tech crew.
Here is an extreme example of what can happen at the end of a fatigue chain

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html

"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:41:31 GMT, "LDL"
wrote:

Also the URL I showed is rocognised around the world for airline quality.

Not universally...

{ Snip ]

Further, why *don't* they deserve "5-star hotels"??? This is a
condition of employment issue, just like whether *you* get a reserved
parking space at *your* workplace, whether your tea or coffee is
subsidized by *your* employer, how many weeks holiday time you get,
even whether you can bring your spouse to the annual party!

Are their own houses, apartment etc are to that standard?

Not relevant! This is a contract issue between the staff and the
airline and the airline and the hotels.

If I have a contract that says I will be paid $X plus various
benefits, then if the benefits are not up to scratch, I have a
legitimate complaint. And if I manage a contract with a hotel, and
the hotel fails to deliver, then I have a legitimate complaint.

The hotels they currently have are perfectly up to scratch. They just
wanted luxory. More English channels I would consider a little over the top
especially when you knew that your job description will mean that you will
be entering foreign countries. Many of them have the job because they can
travel for virtually free.

We cannot judge
but all they need is a place to crash comfortably and that does't mean.

The minimum standard that they "need" is no more relevant than the
minimum wage that they could live on.

Their wages are certainly adequate. The training staff are not below
$40,000 PA not to mention the share offer, travel concessions (their partner
is able to get 10% of flights and certain families get 25% of the fares -
That is cheap enough)

They are general staff and not top executives.

Why should there be two standards, then? In both cases, there is an
agreement between the individual and the company as to the sort of
accommodation that is appropriate when travel ling on business.

Then should the top executives have a $40,000 PA for their work? This seems
like typical socialist thinking but I could be wrong.

When I have been overseas,
the places I find quite comfortable were 3 1/2 stars and I was quite
happy
with that.

Gosh. And how often do you go overseas? Is it more or less than
every single working week?

That is what they are paid to do. That is their job. There are plenty if
young women that would do anything (one story basically a girl went to
russia to get her legs expanded just so she can have a job as a stewardess)
to have this job because of the travelling.

When in Hong Kong, my 3 1/2 star Majestic Hotel was certainly all I need
after a business meeting. In Beijing, The 3 1/2 star Tian-Tian Hotel
again
had no problems although their lights certainly needed some work. When
in
Singapore the British Airlines owned 3 1/2 star New Park Hotel is so much
quieter than my cousin's apartment (15 stories up with a wonderful view
of
the bay and you could easily see Indonesia). Kuala Lumpur, the 3 1/2
star
Capitol Hotel is quieter than my parents in law home as I don't hear the
mosque callings early in the morning (although no Qantas airlines land in
KL
or Beijing). The list goes on

And who is rating these hotels? Has it occurred to you that the
alleged "5 star Mainz Hilton" may be less good than the 3/5 star
Majestic in HKG?

Have you been there? I cannot judge for myself but looking at the internet
photos at the Hilton web site, they look more than adequate.

And further, notice that the complaints include the noise, so quite
possibly the staff would be happy with a good, quiet hotel with a
lower bogus star rating (as if that means anything) than a noisy
allegedly luxury hotel with poor quality linen and inadequate sound
proofing...

Unless you have been there you cannot properly judge. Neither can I but the
Hilton chain of hotels (some of the conferences I have been) have been
extremely good.

They are there for work and not for a holiday is my entire statement. If
they want better accomodation, they can pay extra for that and not the

Quite. Which is why they deserve what they agreed when they
negotiated the contract: BECAUSE they are there for work. They cannot
decide midway through that they're bored and want to go home...
BECAUSE they are there for work!

And what was agreed? When they had the contract, they knew what they were
getting themselves into. Now they want more. Once again they do not own
Qantas but the share holders do. If Qantas was owned by the entire staff,
then I would say that it is their business and good luck to them.

You appear to have a very strange idea of the realities of travel ling
for business as opposed to pleasure!

I have travelled for pleasure and for business too. I have been in ****
hole hotels and well as some good ones.

From personal experience as well as many others comments (when you
view
the
airline quality web page),

... which notes "4 star" not "3 star" as you allege, and I'd just
remark that there are only two "5 star" airlines, so in other words by
your preferred "ranking" URL, Qantas is as good or better than every
American or European airline...

Not against British Airlines and the other two I have mentioned earlier.

According to your URL, they are equally ranked with BA. CX is one of
the two "5 star" carriers, and Emirates is a 4 star just like BA and
QF.

2002 & 2003 Emirates had 5-stars. Why they are slipping, I cannot answer.
A few years ago Malaysian Airlines were pitiful but in recent years, they
lifted their game and they are extremely competitive with purchases of
several 777s so I wouldn't be surprised if they get the 5-star rating in the
near future.

The main crux is that these people who want luxory service should start from
themselves and give out the luxory service to the passengers. Passengers
will be happy and will continue to fly with them. They then would have some
leverage to get the luxory accomodation.

Are you beginning to see the problem with your fixation on this "star
rating" thing?

No. they should start to give good service and then they will have the
leverage to get what they want.

Also still not to the standard to the former Ansett Australia Airlines.

Yet the former Ansett flew very very few international sectors.

Their Asian / European route they usually code shared with Singapore Airline
although they had a regular schedule from SYD and SIN. They mainly
concentrated along the Pacific route to the US.

And when Ansett flew, global standards *were* higher (I'm sad to say).

One thing we agree on.

And lastly Ansett's management was so good that they... failed.

Courtesy of Air New Zealand. That was a ****ing sad loss.

you will notice that their treatment to
passengers during their flights are very quite cumbersome. How many
night
flights (when I cannot sleep during flights) I call for service when
to
be
ignored to a point that I leave my seat to approach them and see them
sitting together chatting away at the gallery. Many times they forget
the
order or simply provide it at the end of the flight.

So what? This is a "pay and benefits" issue for Qantas staff, and
nothing to do with you...

They have to show something before they can deserve a pay rise.

If the contract says they get a certain standard of accommodation (and
it does, believe me), then *you* are inventing any notion of a raise.
They are just insisting on getting what they agreed. Would you accept
a cut in your pay resulting from your bank deciding they'll charge you
a fee for handling your paycheck?

Is a luxurious hotel a necessity or a luxory item. There are plenty of
hotels that are way by far more than adequate for what they need. I am not
asking them to go to a flea bitten hotel along "Route 66"

Has their service risen.

Irrelevant. What they agreed to is not being provided, and it's not
even the airline that they are complaining about!

It is leverage. Serve the customers first and then you have the leverage to
ask for luxurious accomodation.

Has it dawned on you that the airline *pays* those hotels to provide
accommodation? If you paid for hotels for a bunch of people, would
you want to know if they didn't get what you expected for your money?

And you think that Airline such as Qantas haven't an idea of what these
hotels are like? I suppose that since they are selling the bookings with
hotels for decades, I would think that there is someone they hored to stay
in them and check it out as well as a database from other sources.

As a matter of fact they have been quite sloppy (with the
exception of business and first class passengers).

Again, so?

Many passengers complain to Qantas but falls on some deaf ears. It
would
take someone that has plenty of shares in Qantas, a Qantas Club
membership
with Qantas Frequent Flyers gold to get anywhere as they treat their
business class and first class passengers with royalty.

Many people complain to many companies, and some of the complaints are
even justified. None of which have anything to do with pay and
benefit issues between Qantas staff and management...

Have something to show before you demand benefits.

Nope. You can, and should, demand what you agreed to with the
management when you took the job.

Oh that agreement again. Didn't they sign the agreement that they are to
provide a level of customer service instead of playing cards at the back
galley during night flights while their passengers are paging them.

Just for a single cup of coffee I waited over 30 minutes so I went to the
galley directly to see them sitting and chatting. That is poor customer
service in my knowledge. That would not be heard from Malaysian Airlines
(currently) BA, Sing Air as well as Cathay.

They do not own the company, the share holders does.

Yep. And it's the shareholders who are paying for the substandard
accommodation...

Do you have sufficent evidence to pass that judgement?

Mind you that all Qantas staff who have
worked over a year has an equivalent of AUD $1,000 worth of shared as a
bonus to them.

Part of their contract, I believe. Just like the rest of the pay and
benefit issues, like vacation time, travel privileges, work rules,
etc.

And customer service....?

[ Snip ]

So you'd be happy if a hotel you were staying at for business (i.e.
not paid out of your pocket) used poor linens, was noisy, slow, etc?

I am not talking about a three bit motel but at least a 3 1/2 Star hotel.
currently Qantas staff are using 4 Star Hotel such as the Raffles in
Singapore.

Which was not mentioned. Has it not dawned on you that *if* you are
booked into the Raffles, and the bed linen is terrible, *then* you
have a legitimate complaint with the Raffles?

I can only agree with the staff and they have not got it is that
a gym is becoming more of a necessity for use when in a foreign country.

"They work hard" ****, that is the biggest wank I have heard.

You are an obvious cretin...

I am only going by my experience in many different airlines. Some of
them
(not Qantas) I really doubt that I should call them an airline.

None of which has anything to do with the management of an airline's
responsibility to provide a specific, contracted standard of
accommodation to their crews when overnighting, and the hotel's
responsibility to deliver the standard of accommodation that they
contracted with the airline to deliver.

So far the contract is more than adequate. Just the stewardess just want
more.

Malc.

Just make them eat the awful food they serve on Qantas. They'll just demand
a hotel with lots of toilet wrapper and will never get to use the bed!

i believe that would be Hotel 'Numero Dos'?

"jboy" wrote in message
...

Just make them eat the awful food they serve on Qantas. They'll just
demand
a hotel with lots of toilet wrapper and will never get to use the bed!

4000 psi wrote in message
news:mgQTb.17525$tP1.7677@fed1read07...
but on the other end the crew gets into a free hotel room and get drunk
and
have wild sex parties ... then they accumulate all kinds of contraband and
carry it thru airport security and customs w/o anyone troubling them ...

Of all the stupid blithering drivel !!! This sounds like a very bad case of
sour grapes, if I cant have an employer funded hotel room , then why the
hell should anyone else?
Have you ever worked a 12-14 hour shift ,crossed a handful of timezones ,
put up with whining morons , THEN , tried to sleep in a bed that is not
your own , in a room that is noisy , or not dark enough , or uncomfortable ?
Then , be expected to do the return leg , cross the same handful of
timezones , with a different gaggle of whining morons , and be expected to
do your job with a happy and smiling demeanour ?? Somehow , I think not.
These people (cabin staff) are not on holidays. They do it week in and week
out. I know from experience that the novelty wears off. Your hotel is your
refuge from the rigours of International Air Travel , it becomes your "
home". What star rating your accomodation has is irrelevant! A good room
is always a good room , regardless of its star rating. Begone , you QANTAS
bashers , do they come to where you work and tell you how to sweep up?

R.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:19:50 -0700, matt weber
wrote:

O

LONG waits for hotel rooms with fridges in Los Angeles; and

Because hotel rooms with fridges are very rare in the USA (even in 5
star accomodation)...

Not so! Embassy Suites, Homewood Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Residence
Inns, Fairfield Suites are brands that have fridges.

Personally, though, I think 5 star accommodations are *less* likely to
have a fridge (why would you need one when you have a phone and 24
hour room service?)

Malc.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:06:05 GMT, "LDL"
wrote:


"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:41:31 GMT, "LDL"
wrote:

Also the URL I showed is rocognised around the world for airline quality.

Not universally...

{ Snip ]

Further, why *don't* they deserve "5-star hotels"??? This is a
condition of employment issue, just like whether *you* get a reserved
parking space at *your* workplace, whether your tea or coffee is
subsidized by *your* employer, how many weeks holiday time you get,
even whether you can bring your spouse to the annual party!

Are their own houses, apartment etc are to that standard?

Not relevant! This is a contract issue between the staff and the
airline and the airline and the hotels.

If I have a contract that says I will be paid $X plus various
benefits, then if the benefits are not up to scratch, I have a
legitimate complaint. And if I manage a contract with a hotel, and
the hotel fails to deliver, then I have a legitimate complaint.

The hotels they currently have are perfectly up to scratch.

If the contract says they are not, then they are not!

What you think is suitable DOES NOT MATTER!

They just wanted luxory.

Really? And where, exactly, did you read that? I read that they
wanted quiet rooms, curtains without holes, etc. Is that "luxury" in
your book? In mine, it's the standard I'd expect from a quality
hotel!

More English channels I would consider a little over the top
especially when you knew that your job description will mean that you will
be entering foreign countries.

Maybe, but note that no instance was cited where they demanded more
channels and got them. So has it occurred to you that this request
may have been directed to their bosses along the lines of "Hey, when
selecting a hotel overseas, pick one with English language TV!"?

Many of them have the job because they can
travel for virtually free.

So? As a matter of fact, many non-airline staff feel the same about
the travel required for their job. I've flown about 2,500,000 miles
with various commercial airlines for my job, and one of the reasons I
put up with being away from home so much is the knowledge that I can
fly essentially anywhere in the world for free using "my" miles.

We cannot judge
but all they need is a place to crash comfortably and that does't mean.

The minimum standard that they "need" is no more relevant than the
minimum wage that they could live on.

Their wages are certainly adequate. The training staff are not below
$40,000 PA not to mention the share offer, travel concessions (their partner
is able to get 10% of flights and certain families get 25% of the fares -
That is cheap enough)

So what? What's your job? Would you like to know how your boss can
explain to you that your pay and benefits is certainly adequate, so if
you ask for a raise, everyone will know that you're just being greedy?

They are general staff and not top executives.

Why should there be two standards, then? In both cases, there is an
agreement between the individual and the company as to the sort of
accommodation that is appropriate when travel ling on business.

Then should the top executives have a $40,000 PA for their work?

Why not?

This seems
like typical socialist thinking but I could be wrong.

Maybe, but the issue is that YOU are trying to claim that some package
of pay and benefits is adequate. Now, *that* is totally consistent
with "typical socialist thinking" as you call it. In *capitalist*
thinking, the "correct" pay and benefits package is the least you can
offer to get the staff you need (from the corporate perspective) and
the most you can get from the employer (from the employee
perspective).

So If Qantas offered their staff 5 star hotels, complementary travel
for them and their families, and a turkey in the mail every Christmas,
that's NOTHING to do with *you*!

When I have been overseas,
the places I find quite comfortable were 3 1/2 stars and I was quite
happy
with that.

Gosh. And how often do you go overseas? Is it more or less than
every single working week?

That is what they are paid to do. That is their job.

Correct. So your experience is NOT IMPORTANT!

The fact that *you* were "quite happy with that" is *utterly*
irrelevant!

There are plenty if
young women that would do anything (one story basically a girl went to
russia to get her legs expanded just so she can have a job as a stewardess)
to have this job because of the travelling.

And you think this comes as news to Qantas?

If not, has it occurred to you that Qantas may have factored all this
into their pay and benefit negotiations?

So that, say, instead of "here's a 5% pay increase" they may have said
"here's a 3% pay increase, and we'll put you up in 4 or 5 star hotels,
and you'll be happy and we'll be happy since our contracts with the
hotels will cost us less than the 2% salary difference".

Do you even *vaguely* understand how people negotiate?

When in Hong Kong, my 3 1/2 star Majestic Hotel was certainly all I need
after a business meeting. In Beijing, The 3 1/2 star Tian-Tian Hotel
again
had no problems although their lights certainly needed some work. When
in
Singapore the British Airlines owned 3 1/2 star New Park Hotel is so much
quieter than my cousin's apartment (15 stories up with a wonderful view
of
the bay and you could easily see Indonesia). Kuala Lumpur, the 3 1/2
star
Capitol Hotel is quieter than my parents in law home as I don't hear the
mosque callings early in the morning (although no Qantas airlines land in
KL
or Beijing). The list goes on

And who is rating these hotels? Has it occurred to you that the
alleged "5 star Mainz Hilton" may be less good than the 3/5 star
Majestic in HKG?

Have you been there? I cannot judge for myself but looking at the internet
photos at the Hilton web site, they look more than adequate.

So what you're saying is that you "cannot judge for" yourself, yet you
immediately judge that "they look more than adequate"!

Newsflash: the people who HAD been there stated that the linens were
unacceptable. YOUR obligation is to show that the claim was false,
and the linens were acceptable. Yet you acknowledge that you have no
idea about *that* hotel, and instead ramble on about totally different
hotels in totally different parts of the world!

And further, notice that the complaints include the noise, so quite
possibly the staff would be happy with a good, quiet hotel with a
lower bogus star rating (as if that means anything) than a noisy
allegedly luxury hotel with poor quality linen and inadequate sound
proofing...

Unless you have been there you cannot properly judge. Neither can I but the
Hilton chain of hotels (some of the conferences I have been) have been
extremely good.

I am a Hilton "Diamond HHonors VIP" member. A few years ago I
answered the phone at the office one morning to hear a Hilton
Corporation executive offering me their tickets to a basketball game.

Some Hiltons are good, some are less good, some are noisy, some are
less noisy. The fact that the "Homewood Suites by Hilton" is Boulder
is quiet doesn't change the fact that the Kensington Olympia Hilton in
London is noisy on the front side, and that the Los Angeles Airport
Hilton is noisy on the back side!

They are there for work and not for a holiday is my entire statement. If
they want better accomodation, they can pay extra for that and not the

Quite. Which is why they deserve what they agreed when they
negotiated the contract: BECAUSE they are there for work. They cannot
decide midway through that they're bored and want to go home...
BECAUSE they are there for work!

And what was agreed? When they had the contract, they knew what they were
getting themselves into. Now they want more.

Really? SAYS WHO?

It isn't "wanting more" to ask that curtains in a 4 or 5 star hotel
not have holes! It isn't "wanting more" to ask that you get the
quietest rooms if you want to sleep all day (so you can work all
night). It isn't "wanting more" to expect that the linens in a
supposedly good

Once again they do not own Qantas but the share holders do.

And (follow closely) the SHAREHOLDERS are not getting value for money
from those hotels. Understand?

If Qantas was owned by the entire staff,
then I would say that it is their business and good luck to them.

Irrelevant. That's like saying you can only expect to be paid what
your salary should be if your employer is owned by the entire staff.

What *is* your job, anyway?

You appear to have a very strange idea of the realities of travel ling
for business as opposed to pleasure!

I have travelled for pleasure and for business too. I have been in ****
hole hotels and well as some good ones.

I've had a suite at the Waldorf Astoria (nice), the Washington Hilton
(not bad, not great), the Capitol Hilton (nice, not as nice as the
Waldorf). I've stayed in hotels where they were surprised that I
wanted the room for more than an hour or so (really! but only for one
night. Then I boarded Concorde... true!)

So what?

From personal experience as well as many others comments (when you
view
the
airline quality web page),

... which notes "4 star" not "3 star" as you allege, and I'd just
remark that there are only two "5 star" airlines, so in other words by
your preferred "ranking" URL, Qantas is as good or better than every
American or European airline...

Not against British Airlines and the other two I have mentioned earlier.

According to your URL, they are equally ranked with BA. CX is one of
the two "5 star" carriers, and Emirates is a 4 star just like BA and
QF.

2002 & 2003 Emirates had 5-stars. Why they are slipping, I cannot answer.
A few years ago Malaysian Airlines were pitiful but in recent years, they
lifted their game and they are extremely competitive with purchases of
several 777s so I wouldn't be surprised if they get the 5-star rating in the
near future.

You appear sadly ignorant about the utter lack of relevance of
equipment type (777s, or A345s as Singapore is currently pushing) to
on board service.

Otherwise you may as well argue that United should have had the 5-star
rating when they, err, introduced the 777 into service!

The main crux is that these people who want luxory service should start from
themselves and give out the luxory service to the passengers.

No, the main crux is that *IF* you want your employees to deliver of
their best to your customers, *THEN* you should take care of your
employees!

Passengers
will be happy and will continue to fly with them. They then would have some
leverage to get the luxory accomodation.

Oh, get real. They obviously already *have* some kind of entitlement
to places like the so-called 5 star Mainz Hilton, which is why they
were in a position to complain about the poor linen!

Are you beginning to see the problem with your fixation on this "star
rating" thing?

No. they should start to give good service and then they will have the
leverage to get what they want.

OK. Send me, say, 10% of your salary. When you do *really* well,
I'll send it back.

Sound good to you?

If not, why demand it from others?

In other words, JUSTIFY YOURSELF!

Also still not to the standard to the former Ansett Australia Airlines.

Yet the former Ansett flew very very few international sectors.

Their Asian / European route they usually code shared with Singapore Airline
although they had a regular schedule from SYD and SIN. They mainly
concentrated along the Pacific route to the US.

No, they didn't. Australia to the USA was not a big Ansett route, if
they every flew it!

You appear *very* misinformed about this airline.

Ansett competed primarily against Australian Airlines as a domestic
carrier, while Qantas had the long-haul traffic. When Qantas merged
with Australian, Ansett started flying a *few* short international
sectors, such as Singapore. But they just didn't have the equipment
to provide a concerted challenge on the Australia-Japan,
Australia-Europe, or Australia-US routes.

[ Snip ]

And lastly Ansett's management was so good that they... failed.

Courtesy of Air New Zealand. That was a ****ing sad loss.

Ah, yes. Now why did ANZ *have* control? Hmmm?

Oh, yes, because of AN's management!

you will notice that their treatment to
passengers during their flights are very quite cumbersome. How many
night
flights (when I cannot sleep during flights) I call for service when
to
be
ignored to a point that I leave my seat to approach them and see them
sitting together chatting away at the gallery. Many times they forget
the
order or simply provide it at the end of the flight.

So what? This is a "pay and benefits" issue for Qantas staff, and
nothing to do with you...

They have to show something before they can deserve a pay rise.

If the contract says they get a certain standard of accommodation (and
it does, believe me), then *you* are inventing any notion of a raise.
They are just insisting on getting what they agreed. Would you accept
a cut in your pay resulting from your bank deciding they'll charge you
a fee for handling your paycheck?

Is a luxurious hotel a necessity or a luxory item.

It's a contracted provision, just like your pay.

There are plenty of
hotels that are way by far more than adequate for what they need. I am not
asking them to go to a flea bitten hotel along "Route 66"

No, you are somehow claiming that they should take a cut in benefits
and pay because you are too ignorant to understand that the hotels the
airline has selected from them are not up to the standard expected.

Has their service risen.

Irrelevant. What they agreed to is not being provided, and it's not
even the airline that they are complaining about!

It is leverage. Serve the customers first and then you have the leverage to
ask for luxurious accomodation.

Yet the accommodation is already being provided, and it SHOULD be up
to a certain standard (whatever that standard is, and that is
dependent on an agreement between management and staff).

So you are basically saying that it's OK for a hotel to deliver
substandard accommodation if the occupant of the room is not working
as hard as you'd like?

Has it dawned on you that the airline *pays* those hotels to provide
accommodation? If you paid for hotels for a bunch of people, would
you want to know if they didn't get what you expected for your money?

And you think that Airline such as Qantas haven't an idea of what these
hotels are like? I suppose that since they are selling the bookings with
hotels for decades, I would think that there is someone they hored to stay
in them and check it out as well as a database from other sources.

God, you are stupid, aren't you???

WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO STAY IN THE HOTELS TELL THE AIRLINE THAT THE HOTEL
IS NOT UP TO STANDARD, OR IS NO LONGER UP TO STANDARD, NOW WHAT?

UNDERSTAND?

As a matter of fact they have been quite sloppy (with the
exception of business and first class passengers).

Again, so?

Many passengers complain to Qantas but falls on some deaf ears. It
would
take someone that has plenty of shares in Qantas, a Qantas Club
membership
with Qantas Frequent Flyers gold to get anywhere as they treat their
business class and first class passengers with royalty.

Many people complain to many companies, and some of the complaints are
even justified. None of which have anything to do with pay and
benefit issues between Qantas staff and management...

Have something to show before you demand benefits.

Nope. You can, and should, demand what you agreed to with the
management when you took the job.

Oh that agreement again. Didn't they sign the agreement that they are to
provide a level of customer service instead of playing cards at the back
galley during night flights while their passengers are paging them.

Oh, poor widdle diddums!

Just for a single cup of coffee I waited over 30 minutes so I went to the
galley directly to see them sitting and chatting. That is poor customer
service in my knowledge. That would not be heard from Malaysian Airlines
(currently) BA, Sing Air as well as Cathay.

So you are saying that NONE of those airlines EVER have missed a page,
or thought someone else had dealt with it?

You do understand that your single experience is quite utterly
irrelevant, and unless you want to claim that YOU have never had a bad
day at work, then you are just being a total hypocrite!

They do not own the company, the share holders does.

Yep. And it's the shareholders who are paying for the substandard
accommodation...

Do you have sufficent evidence to pass that judgement?

Yep. The people who stay in the rooms paid for by the airline said
so!

You, not having stayed in rooms in that hotel, have no basis to refute
them.

Mind you that all Qantas staff who have
worked over a year has an equivalent of AUD $1,000 worth of shared as a
bonus to them.

Part of their contract, I believe. Just like the rest of the pay and
benefit issues, like vacation time, travel privileges, work rules,
etc.

And customer service....?

Probably not, any more than your attitude is part of your contract
with your employer.

You are expected to do the job to a certain level of competence. It
is not up to some arbitrary hotel to decide that some idiot (like you)
who didn't get a cup of coffee on one flight is justification for
providing a room with holes in the curtain!

[ Snip ]

None of which has anything to do with the management of an airline's
responsibility to provide a specific, contracted standard of
accommodation to their crews when overnighting, and the hotel's
responsibility to deliver the standard of accommodation that they
contracted with the airline to deliver.

So far the contract is more than adequate.

You don't know that, and the very fact that you would say that shows
that you are a total ****wit!

Just the stewardess just want more.

You are inventing that to justify your stupid, unfounded, ignorant
bias.

Now, what's your job, salary, and benefit package? I'll then explain
why you're overpaid and greedy, and something less is adequate.

Malc.

In message , Malcolm Weir
writes
The fact that the "Homewood Suites by Hilton" is Boulder
is quiet doesn't change the fact that the Kensington Olympia Hilton in
London is noisy on the front side, and that the Los Angeles Airport
Hilton is noisy on the back side!

If the Kensington Olympia Hilton is the one next to the Underground
line, I can confirm that (when I stayed there admittedly a while ago)
it's one of the most unpleasant places I've ever attempted to sleep
[single-glazed badly-fitting metal windows overlooking a busy railway
line].
--
Roland Perry

In message , Malcolm Weir
writes
Personally, though, I think 5 star accommodations are *less* likely to
have a fridge (why would you need one when you have a phone and 24
hour room service?)

Because the bottle of wine you brought with you is a tenth the price?
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:54:57 -0800, Malcolm Weir
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:19:50 -0700, matt weber
wrote:

O

LONG waits for hotel rooms with fridges in Los Angeles; and

Because hotel rooms with fridges are very rare in the USA (even in 5
star accomodation)...

Not so! Embassy Suites, Homewood Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Residence
Inns, Fairfield Suites are brands that have fridges.
None of those are hotels . They are 'long stay' accomodation designed
for self catering. BIG DIFFERENCE.

It is like the difference between a Medina property and a Sheraton in
Australia.