We used to stay here -- old USAir days.
Qantas crew try to dump hotel
January 31, 2006
QANTAS cabin crew, who claim they have been exposed to drug deals and violence at their Los Angeles hotel, must wait at least four months before they find out whether the airline is required to move them to another location.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been hearing a dispute lodged by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) on behalf of Qantas cabin crew who are required to stay at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. Qantas relocated its flight crew to the hotel in downtown Los Angeles in March last year and uses about 250 rooms a night.
But the FAAA claimed the hotel's location exposed staff to threats to their personal safety.
It told the AIRC the area was "rampant with drug dealers and intimidating locals" and some cabin crew had been physically assaulted, had experienced threats of assault, witnessed drug dealing and taking, and been subject to harassment and intimidation.
In one incident, a female flight attendant recounted how she was "absolutely terrified" after being victimised on a bus with sexually explicit threats including: "I'm going to give you venereal disease".
Advertisement:
Qantas, which did not dispute any of the claims, said it had now made arrangements so crew could be escorted by hotel staff to nearby shops.
The airline also said that according to the Los Angeles Police Department the crime rate in the downtown area had fallen in recent years.
In his judgment on the matter, AIRC Commissioner Frank Raffaelli said the seriousness of some of the incidents recounted by cabin crew raised the question whether the airline was contravening its enterprise bargaining agreement requirements to provide a "high security standard" for staff.
"I do not think it appropriate to provide a quick fix by either making findings that would force Qantas to move location, or to dismiss FAAA's concerns when it has provided instances of troubling events," he said in his judgment.
"In these circumstances, I propose that a four-month period be established during which the situation can be further monitored."
Qantas crew try to dump hotel
January 31, 2006
QANTAS cabin crew, who claim they have been exposed to drug deals and violence at their Los Angeles hotel, must wait at least four months before they find out whether the airline is required to move them to another location.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has been hearing a dispute lodged by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) on behalf of Qantas cabin crew who are required to stay at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. Qantas relocated its flight crew to the hotel in downtown Los Angeles in March last year and uses about 250 rooms a night.
But the FAAA claimed the hotel's location exposed staff to threats to their personal safety.
It told the AIRC the area was "rampant with drug dealers and intimidating locals" and some cabin crew had been physically assaulted, had experienced threats of assault, witnessed drug dealing and taking, and been subject to harassment and intimidation.
In one incident, a female flight attendant recounted how she was "absolutely terrified" after being victimised on a bus with sexually explicit threats including: "I'm going to give you venereal disease".
Advertisement:
Qantas, which did not dispute any of the claims, said it had now made arrangements so crew could be escorted by hotel staff to nearby shops.
The airline also said that according to the Los Angeles Police Department the crime rate in the downtown area had fallen in recent years.
In his judgment on the matter, AIRC Commissioner Frank Raffaelli said the seriousness of some of the incidents recounted by cabin crew raised the question whether the airline was contravening its enterprise bargaining agreement requirements to provide a "high security standard" for staff.
"I do not think it appropriate to provide a quick fix by either making findings that would force Qantas to move location, or to dismiss FAAA's concerns when it has provided instances of troubling events," he said in his judgment.
"In these circumstances, I propose that a four-month period be established during which the situation can be further monitored."
