Qantas boosts international capacity, wet lease Finnair aircraft

[tdimdad]

It reads like the union is late to the party. Both AY and QF public press releases refer to AY pilots and crew. Given AY has used SE Asian contract companies for the cabin crew for many years, it should not have come as a surprise to the unions that this is likely to continue - in fact, there is no reason why it could or should change or that suddenly the cabin crew to these remote routes should come from Finland.

Of course, if behind the closed doors QF has told the unions something different and made explicit references to Finnish cabin crews, then the story changes and gives legitimacy to the union's claim. But because it was commercial-in-confidence (per the union), we can't openly validate the claim, thus it's "he said, she said...".

AY press and QF press.

 

[N860CR]

These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay reduced wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.

This whole finnair arrangement is a great way to avoid paying Australian staff. It doesn’t do us any good to have our labour outsourced.

 

[stm1sydney]

<redacted>

When you argue something that is clearly not the case <redacted>, then people tend to discredit any cogent parts of your argument (if any).

 

[tdimdad]

These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay reduced wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.

How do you view the fact that QF uses overseas and outsourced crews outside of Australia (e.g. SIN-LHR)? Finnair is not alone in this and this wet lease hasn't changed much anything for the existing QF crews. All it does is to not meet any high hopes which the union might have harboured on potential new work coming in.

 

[SYD]

How do you view the fact that QF uses overseas and outsourced crews outside of Australia (e.g. SIN-LHR)? Finnair is not alone in this and this wet lease hasn't changed much anything for the existing QF crews. All it does is to not meet any high hopes which the union might have harboured on potential new work coming in.

But there is more work coming! The wet leases are only a temp arrangement before QFi takeover.…

 

[anyonebutqantas]

These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay reduced wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.

This whole finnair arrangement is a great way to avoid paying Australian staff. It doesn’t do us any good to have our labour outsourced.

<redacted>

I dare you to take a flight on Japan Airlines, ANA, Thai, Cathay, Singapore Airlines, or Korean, and ask the crew what they consider their employment is.

I suspect they'd be upset, but they'd probably be too well-trained and well-mannered to respond to you.

The airline ratings and consumer sentiment also show that Asian crew are perfectly capable of providing good service. Slandering crew as providing inferior service because of their racial background is the textbook <redacted>.

The Finnair arrangement exists because QF just doesn't have enough planes of its own right now. They can't exactly conjure a bunch of new airframes out of the sky overnight.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I don't think the poster's point was to slander Asian crew competencies, but because they're cheaper than hiring Australian crew which is true.

 

[N860CR]

When you argue something that is clearly not the case <redacted>, then people tend to discredit any cogent parts of your argument (if any).

Would you care to advise what Finnair south East Asian cabin crew are paid? And compare that to minimum wage in Australia/Finland?

<redacted>

I dare you to take a flight on Japan Airlines, ANA, Thai, Cathay, Singapore Airlines, or Korean, and ask the crew what they consider their employment is.

I suspect they'd be upset, but they'd probably be too well-trained and well-mannered to respond to you.

The airline ratings and consumer sentiment also show that Asian crew are perfectly capable of providing good service. Slandering crew as providing inferior service because of their racial background is the textbook <redacted>.

The Finnair arrangement exists because QF just doesn't have enough planes of its own right now. They can't exactly conjure a bunch of new airframes out of the sky overnight.

No, it’s fact. These labour hire arrangements in Asia exist to avoid paying western wages. It’s irrelevant as to what a local carrier does. We’re talking about an Australian company outsourcing labour to avoid paying Australian wages. <redacted>

How do you view the fact that QF uses overseas and outsourced crews outside of Australia (e.g. SIN-LHR)? Finnair is not alone in this and this wet lease hasn't changed much anything for the existing QF crews. All it does is to not meet any high hopes which the union might have harboured on potential new work coming in.

Equally poor, and they shouldn’t be for it. The use of NZ crew on long haul sectors from Australia to avoid providing required rest facilities is disgusting.

I don't think the poster's point was to slander Asian crew competencies, but because they're cheaper than hiring Australian crew which is true.

Correct. The fact that some would turn it into a racist attack is concerning. I’m quite happy with Asian crews and generally fly nobody but SIA, however that’s on a Singaporean registered company with Singaporean crews.

 

[anyonebutqantas]

No, it’s fact. These labour hire arrangements in Asia exist to avoid paying western wages. It’s irrelevant as to what a local carrier does. We’re talking about an Australian company outsourcing labour to avoid paying Australian wages. <redacted>.

Don't blame me for your choice of words. You indicated crew as 'not good' based on them being Asia based. <redacted>

Now you're backpeddling at 100 miles an hour <redacted> by referring to your enjoyment of Singapore Airlines, seemingly oblivious that Singapore Airlines crew are, surprise surprise, based in Asia and ethnically Asian.

<redacted>

 

[justinbrett]

These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay reduced wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.

This whole finnair arrangement is a great way to avoid paying Australian staff. It doesn’t do us any good to have our labour outsourced.

If those employees are based in Australia, yes, I would agree. But they are not - so their wages will be in accordance with Singapore labour laws - which I don't imagine is that cheap compared to other countries like Thailand or Vietnam. In fact, with the SGD/AUD rate at the moment, it's probably close to the Australian salary.

If you have this attitude you'd never buy anything that's not Australian made as there is a lot of overseas labour that goes on to products and services sold in Australia with Australian pricing.

It's a strange argument given this is a short temporary deal for two years until the dry lease starts. If they are doing this to save money it would be a much longer deal. To say it's outsourcing labour is not correct - it's standard practice for a wet lease to come with crew. QF don't provide cabin crew to Alliance to fly the E190s.

 

[N860CR]

Don't blame me for your choice of words. You smeared crew as 'not good' based on them being Asia based. <redacted>.

Now you're backpeddling at 100 miles an hour trying to conceal your racism by referring to your enjoyment of Singapore Airlines, seemingly oblivious that Singapore Airlines crew are, surprise surprise, based in Asia and ethnically Asian.

<redacted>

Let’s cut back on the personal attacks, hey? I’ve provided fact, it doesn’t suit your agenda. I’m certainly not back peddling. My point remains correct. As I said, SIA is a Singaporean company. Quite simple.

What I said was “These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay slave labour wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.” Citi/Optus/Vodafone pay their Indian call centre staff about $180 per month. This is while charging Australian prices to Australian clients. Would you say these call centres offer a good product?

Qantas and Finnair are not Asian based airlines. They are Australian and European based. The only reason these outstation crew bases exist are to pay wages well below what’s legal in their own jurisdictions.

<redacted>

It's a strange argument given this is a short temporary deal for two years until the dry lease starts. If they are doing this to save money it would be a much longer deal. To say it's outsourcing labour is not correct - it's standard practice for a wet lease to come with crew. QF don't provide cabin crew to Alliance to fly the E190s.

They don’t. But alliance does pay their staff Australian wages. There would be nothing stopping qantas employing more Australian staff to crew these flights; they just don’t want to pay them. Finnair claimed they had excess capacity, however they’re now actively recruiting outsourced contractors.

 

[justinbrett]

They don’t. But alliance does pay their staff Australian wages. There would be nothing stopping qantas employing more Australian staff to crew these flights; they just don’t want to pay them. Finnair claimed they had excess capacity, however they’re now actively recruiting outsourced contractors.

Huge things stopping them actually. They don't have any A350 crew (including pilots) or any experience operating the aircraft (engineering etc). It will take them time to get this stood up - hence the 2 year period.

If they were dry leasing the aircraft and using outsourced labour, you'd have a point, but with a wet lease, you don't.

 

[N860CR]

Huge things stopping them actually. They don't have any A350 crew (including pilots) or any experience operating the aircraft (engineering etc). It will take them time to get this stood up - hence the 2 year period.

If they were dry leasing the aircraft and using outsourced labour, you'd have a point, but with a wet lease, you don't.

I believe they’re A330s? And again, no issue with Finnair using Finnair pilots. If AY advertised for contracted pilots then I’m sure the pilots union would have the same concern. Qantas could easily provide cabin crew for this arrangement, however they’ve elected for a full wet lease which is questionable to begin with. The wet lease provider is then contracting once again to labour hire, despite one of the claims for using this arrangement being that Finnair had “excess crew”.

 

[Gold Member]

It's a strange argument given this is a short temporary deal for two years until the dry lease starts. If they are doing this to save money it would be a much longer deal. To say it's outsourcing labour is not correct - it's standard practice for a wet lease to come with crew. QF don't provide cabin crew to Alliance to fly the E190s.

Call me a cynic (or realist), but reduced wages is just another term for outsourcing that Big Business likes to use for good PR and to maximise profits in this Capitalist world we live in.

I wouldn’t be surprised one iota if Qantas and/or Finnair ripped up any agreement and deployed an even more profitable outsourcing arrangement after 2 years.

 

[justinbrett]

I believe they’re A330s? And again, no issue with Finnair using Finnair pilots. If AY advertised for contracted pilots then I’m sure the pilots union would have the same concern. Qantas could easily provide cabin crew for this arrangement, however they’ve elected for a full wet lease which is questionable to begin with. The wet lease provider is then contracting once again to labour hire, despite one of the claims for using this arrangement being that Finnair had “excess crew”.

My mistake on the aircraft type, but it's not like QF has spare pilots of any type lying around so the same point applies.

A wet least means AY are responsible for the operation of the aircraft under its AOC, which means the cabin crew must come under the AY umbrella, not QF's.

Whilst it's theoretically possible for QF to loan its cabin crew to AY, who would then have to be certified by AY, this is almost unheard of in a wet lease. It's really up to AY how they crew the aircraft.

I think it's a valid option for any airline to wet lease, there's a time and a place for it, and it seems to be a good idea for QF in this instance.

 

[justinbrett]

Call me a cynic (or realist), but reduced wages is just another term for outsourcing that Big Business likes to use for good PR and to maximise profits in this Capitalist world we live in.

Sure, but if you live your life not accepting this as a fact of life, you would barely be able to buy any product or service <redactred>.

I wouldn’t be surprised one iota if Qantas and/or Finnair ripped up any agreement and deployed an even more profitable outsourcing arrangement after 2 years.

Any potential savings QF makes on the cabin crew is far offset by the costs of the wet lease. A dry lease is a lot cheaper.

 

[anyonebutqantas]

Let’s cut back on the personal attacks, hey? I’ve provided fact, it doesn’t suit your agenda. I’m certainly not back peddling. My point remains correct. As I said, SIA is a Singaporean company. Quite simple.

What I said was “These companies don’t use Asian based crew because they’re good. The same applies to Citi / Optus / Vodafone etc etc. It’s simply to pay slave labour wages while charging Australian prices. And it rarely results in a good product.” Citi/Optus/Vodafone pay their Indian call centre staff about $180 per month. This is while charging Australian prices to Australian clients. Would you say these call centres offer a good product?

Qantas and Finnair are not Asian based airlines. They are Australian and European based. The only reason these outstation crew bases exist are to pay wages well below what’s legal in their own jurisdictions.

<redacted>

They don’t. But alliance does pay their staff Australian wages. There would be nothing stopping qantas employing more Australian staff to crew these flights; they just don’t want to pay them. Finnair claimed they had excess capacity, however they’re now actively recruiting outsourced contractors.

<redacted>

Do you think SIA staff are underpaid and "not good"?

 

[N860CR]

Call me a cynic (or realist), but reduced wages is just another term for outsourcing that Big Business likes to use for good PR and to maximise profits in this Capitalist world we live in.

I wouldn’t be surprised one iota if Qantas and/or Finnair ripped up any agreement and deployed an even more profitable outsourcing arrangement after 2 years.

I’d say realist. And if people are going to be aggressively shot down for pointing this fact out, then it’s not going to get any better.

As I said, no issue with nationals of any country being paid in line with their local wages, but when wealthy countries do it to avoid paying local wages, then it stinks.

My mistake on the aircraft type, but it's not like QF has spare pilots of any type lying around so the same point applies.

A wet least means AY are responsible for the operation of the aircraft under its AOC, which means the cabin crew must come under the AY umbrella, not QF's.

Whilst it's theoretically possible for QF to loan its cabin crew to AY, who would then have to be certified by AY, this is almost unheard of in a wet lease. It's really up to AY how they crew the aircraft.

I think it's a valid option for any airline to wet lease, there's a time and a place for it, and it seems to be a good idea for QF in this instance.

I think the argument is that they do have the capacity. I believe QF removed two 330s from the fleet for freighter conversion?

Post automatically merged: Aug 9, 2023

<redacted>

Do you think SIA staff are underapid and "not good"?

I’ll get you to refer to my initial post. I’ve simply provided fact, you’ve gone off on a rant.

 

[N860CR]

Sure, but if you live your life not accepting this as a fact of life, you would barely be able to buy any product or service.

There’s a huge difference between offshore manufacturing and using offshore labour to crew Australian aeroplanes.

The simple fact of the matter is that virtually any country can do an Australians job cheaper. Where do we stop? Qantas has been guilty of this for a long time, this is just another example.

 

[justinbrett]

I believe QF removed two 330s from the fleet for freighter conversion?

Who do you think will be flying those freighters?

Even if they have enough pilots on the books and/or recruit more; it takes time to train and get operational experience; this is especially compounded as QF introduces A350s and A32Xs. This takes years.

There’s a huge difference between offshore manufacturing and using offshore labour to crew Australian aeroplanes.

The simple fact of the matter is that virtually any country can do an Australians job cheaper. Where do we stop? Qantas has been guilty of this for a long time, this is just another example.

It's not an Australian aircraft. It's Finnish. I really feel like you're missing that point.

These crew members will live in Singapore, and be paid Singaporean wages.