John Holland Aviation announcement
As such the focus shifts from being about hours in attendance to work completed. If you get paid the same for doing the same work in 75% of the time the incentive becomes all about finding the efficiencies to get the job done.
My point is though, none of it ever good enough. Tulla is closed, Avalon has been foreshadowed to close, hundreds will be sacked soon in Sydney on top of those who have left. The response by the company who set the above challenges after they were met and exceeded has been to offshore.
You have Qantas 'group' aircraft namely the A330's that have 2 entirely separate structured groups doing the maintenance on them independent of each other, why on Earth would you employ contractors and full time staff at Jetstar when across the tarmac you have guys standing by idly being told they're going to lose their job because there's no work available for them. It almost seems like it is being done on purpose. It's an extremely poor utilisation of manpower created by the powers that be up in offices.
Line maintenance will be decimated soon enough with fresh faced 18 year old grads coming out of worlds best practice MTO's - 'A' licence fresh in hand and a sparkly AWU agreement to pay them $20/hour. We all know its the wrong path because as tradesmen we all remember how little we then knew at the end of the apprenticeship tenure.
edit: apologies for interjecting with Qantas in a JHAS thread.
Last edited by 600ft-lb; 28th Jul 2013 at 03:40.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: aintsaying
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
imperial shifter
Both hangars each bay have been cleaned up with allocated spots for stands, etc. Looks better yes, but bigger picture, each bay is going to be "rented" out to the airlines as and when they require it.
So that means more layoffs to come at JHAS and more rented out bays to airlines.
So JHAS will just rent out its bays and parking spots and conduct no maintenance, thus no LAME's and AME's.
So yes Leighton holdings owning a big piece of real estate on prime location is true.
Both hangars each bay have been cleaned up with allocated spots for stands, etc. Looks better yes, but bigger picture, each bay is going to be "rented" out to the airlines as and when they require it.
So that means more layoffs to come at JHAS and more rented out bays to airlines.
So JHAS will just rent out its bays and parking spots and conduct no maintenance, thus no LAME's and AME's.
So yes Leighton holdings owning a big piece of real estate on prime location is true.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
600ftlb - no real arguments from me.
With my limited direct experience of Qantas the biggest issue seemed to come from the system of maintenance. What was received as a pack from QF was massive when compared to everyone else. It may be that some of the additional works were necessary and critical, but the general word from the technically aware guys (LAMEs, engineers etc) was that QF did a whole lot of unnecessary works.
One of the things JHAS often gets criticised for was the early freighter checks and that they were done too slowly. When you bear in mind the contract called for spares from QF that were often "accidentally delayed", or thrust reversers that were supplied out of shape, or the on the spot determination that the fuselage had to be scaffolded it becomes very obvious where the additional costs came from. That is where the vast majority of the inefficiency comes from.
There's a whole lot more but that's history now. As has been pointed out JHAS has had their chance, and barring a miracle that's about all they are going to get. Which is a real shame because that base is a fantastic facility. There should be a future for both it and also the QF Tulla facilities.
With my limited direct experience of Qantas the biggest issue seemed to come from the system of maintenance. What was received as a pack from QF was massive when compared to everyone else. It may be that some of the additional works were necessary and critical, but the general word from the technically aware guys (LAMEs, engineers etc) was that QF did a whole lot of unnecessary works.
One of the things JHAS often gets criticised for was the early freighter checks and that they were done too slowly. When you bear in mind the contract called for spares from QF that were often "accidentally delayed", or thrust reversers that were supplied out of shape, or the on the spot determination that the fuselage had to be scaffolded it becomes very obvious where the additional costs came from. That is where the vast majority of the inefficiency comes from.
There's a whole lot more but that's history now. As has been pointed out JHAS has had their chance, and barring a miracle that's about all they are going to get. Which is a real shame because that base is a fantastic facility. There should be a future for both it and also the QF Tulla facilities.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imp Shift - absolutely. Everything in engineering efficiency comes down to preparation and planning. The bloke at the end of the line, whilst possessing good skills and all the rest is hostage to what he (or she as the case may be) has to work with. We never could get QF to lock down a check pack 2 weeks ahead of the aircraft coming in, nor could we get them to commit to spares ahead of schedule etc. The carousel in the store, the distributed consumables, none of that mattered when ultimately compared to the issues that just weren't dealt with.
Key problem JHAS now has is whenever they talk to QF senior people the old arguments of "you stuffed the freighter check" have grown such strong roots in the QF mindset and they simply don't have the rebuttal arguments to hand.
Combined with the open manner in which key clients refer to the "snake oil salesman" the prognosis for the future is particularly dire.
Key problem JHAS now has is whenever they talk to QF senior people the old arguments of "you stuffed the freighter check" have grown such strong roots in the QF mindset and they simply don't have the rebuttal arguments to hand.
Combined with the open manner in which key clients refer to the "snake oil salesman" the prognosis for the future is particularly dire.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the KEY reason behind introducing salaries. It preserves and protects what the guys who do the work get paid regardless of how many hours they spend on the job.
As for the JHAS teething problems, these are mirrored in overseas MRO's. The difference there is that they become "inventive" in more ways than one.
Delivery of the aircraft on time supersedes many other considerations and the price paid later in reworked jobs and extra maintenance doesn't seem to play a part in customer decision making on future work.
Maybe JHAS can perform a Lazarus miracle.
Romulus
To imply that;
... is a bit disingenuous as it's only the first half of the 'efficiency cycle'.
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment?
And then the 'game' starts over....
If you get paid the same for doing the same work in 75% of the time the incentive becomes all about finding the efficiencies to get the job done.
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment?
And then the 'game' starts over....
Last edited by Jetsbest; 28th Jul 2013 at 07:15.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
The view of the employees is that no matter what lean practices achieve, the management will look for more savings to maximize profit (and bonuses).
It doesn't have to be true of course, but the damage a single manager can do can completely undo any goodwill established over years. There are managers in the industry that should never have been hired. Good managers are hard to come by....but that's another story.
The mindset of both parties has to change before change for the better can take place.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jetsbest
... is a bit disingenuous as it's only the first half of the 'efficiency cycle'.
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment?
And then the 'game' starts over....
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment?
And then the 'game' starts over....
Once you have an efficient set of practices you could of course reduce numbers. Or, more likely, you would go out and win more work on the back of those efficiencies.
Is it an egalitarian ideal? Well. I would argue that's not a valid usage of the word, egalitarian is equality for all. I do not and have not advocated such, there is always a need for differing salaries. Egalitarian principles would state AMEs and LAMEs get paid the same, so I don't think you're using the word you are looking for.
If you mean utopian, as in idealistic, then the answer is, as all real world answers are, complicated. Is it utopian to provide a workplace where people earn a decent living without huge amounts of overtime? What about significant overtime? Moderate overtime etc? It comes down to where you draw the line.
But what is certain is that having employment if your field of expertise is vastly superior to not having such employment. In order to do that a company needs to be profitable. Provided both sides of the equation are treated with respect then it works to the advantage of all. Keeping people validly occupied for their agreed salaried hours isn't a loss of the utopian ideal, it is the realisation of a genuinely effective workplace and therefore a workplace that should survive.
That's why it is complicated, what value do you place on a direct contribution to making your own future employment more secure?
And yes, the game keeps going over and over, that's just the way the world is. Every time you make improvements you can be pretty much certain some competitor somewhere is also making improvements. As soon as you stop they will get the advantage over you and it is their workplace that will survive at the expense of your own.
So yes, you can rest on your laurels if you like, but all that will do is crush them and make you vulnerable. Like it or not, that's the way it is. It is why SIAEC, built with the assistance of Qantas, is now in a position they are a superior value offering to QF engineering. You can yell and scream and hate it all you like, but the simple fact is they deliver what is required with a better value proposition in many instances.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aeromedic
......and that's the crux of the matter isn't it?
The view of the employees is that no matter what lean practices achieve, the management will look for more savings to maximize profit (and bonuses).
It doesn't have to be true of course, but the damage a single manager can do can completely undo any goodwill established over years. There are managers in the industry that should never have been hired. Good managers are hard to come by....but that's another story.
The mindset of both parties has to change before change for the better can take place.
The view of the employees is that no matter what lean practices achieve, the management will look for more savings to maximize profit (and bonuses).
It doesn't have to be true of course, but the damage a single manager can do can completely undo any goodwill established over years. There are managers in the industry that should never have been hired. Good managers are hard to come by....but that's another story.
The mindset of both parties has to change before change for the better can take place.
And yes, management will and SHOULD look for more savings. Genuine savings. Savings that do not hinder future growth and performance. That is their job. And it is a tough one, as you point out it takes only one bad manager to wreck all sorts of relationships built up over time.
If and when both sides realise that their futures are inextricably linked, only then will we get to a point where genuine productivity is achieved.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is why SIAEC, built with the assistance of Qantas, is now in a position they are a superior value offering to QF engineering.
I will argue that there is only one way to rig a cable system properly, to inspect a fuselage crown properly, to seal the floors underneath a galley or lavatory properly, to remove and install a MEC properly, identify and repair corrosion properly and etc etc. Those procedures are stipulated in approved data and when adhered to, offer vary little in deviation. The approach to maintenance, historically, has been a way that an Australian maintenance engineer has learned from day one.
On the other hand, if you watched the approach of an Asian MRO personnel to any of the above examples, I can assure you, there is a vastly different view and execution.
Yes, they just shortcut. I may immediately be branded a racist, a counter that management favour, but if you have ever been involved on the hangar floor with these organisations and cannot see this - you are blind, ignorant, stupid or all.
This approach, coupled with these MROs fine tuning their sales pitch - D check in 28 days at a fixed $$$$ then appears to bean counters an unbeatable financial advantage. Thus we have this dilemma of Oz maintenance facilities unable to compete.
There is no doubt that we can fine tune our processes here. We have tried, lean sigma, committees and all sorts of neo management catch phrases then to be thrown another road block, unusable IT, more OH&S, more regulation, by the same management. Have I even the mentioned the industrial agenda.
I could go on and on, it's complicated. My only wish was that there was a genuine attempt by management to address all these issues and move our industry forward with certainty. All buzz words that are thrown around without substance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus,
I didn't say bonuses existed at JHAS, rather that they do exist at other companies as you acknowledge. My point on that was that the employees believed that they do.
As to seeking further savings when things are running lean, any company should consider the cost/benefit when doing so, as much as we like to think it is, workplaces are not the same. It's a two-way street to make it work.
Your Qantas/SIAEC is an example where the same things work at one place but not at the other.
I didn't say bonuses existed at JHAS, rather that they do exist at other companies as you acknowledge. My point on that was that the employees believed that they do.
As to seeking further savings when things are running lean, any company should consider the cost/benefit when doing so, as much as we like to think it is, workplaces are not the same. It's a two-way street to make it work.
Your Qantas/SIAEC is an example where the same things work at one place but not at the other.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clipped - for all the claims of superior quality of Australian work I have yet to see any SIA planes falling from the skies. Same for QF.
I have flown both SIA and QF on multiple occasions, I have yet to see either of their cabins looking overly tatty, although if you take in some of the older QF aircraft (most likely as a result of 787 delays) it would be said that SIA has an edge. The only issue I have seen on a recurring basis concerns QF A380 toilets. Have never had an issue on the SIA equivalent.
Yes I've heard a lot regarding the supposed inferiority of Asian MRO methodologies, but it doesn't seem that the top end Asian airlines that sell MRO services have a problem with maintenance at all.
I have flown both SIA and QF on multiple occasions, I have yet to see either of their cabins looking overly tatty, although if you take in some of the older QF aircraft (most likely as a result of 787 delays) it would be said that SIA has an edge. The only issue I have seen on a recurring basis concerns QF A380 toilets. Have never had an issue on the SIA equivalent.
Yes I've heard a lot regarding the supposed inferiority of Asian MRO methodologies, but it doesn't seem that the top end Asian airlines that sell MRO services have a problem with maintenance at all.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aeromedic
I didn't say bonuses existed at JHAS, rather that they do exist at other companies as you acknowledge. My point on that was that the employees believed that they do.
Originally Posted by aeromedic
As to seeking further savings when things are running lean, any company should consider the cost/benefit when doing so, as much as we like to think it is, workplaces are not the same. It's a two-way street to make it work.
Your Qantas/SIAEC is an example where the same things work at one place but not at the other.
Your Qantas/SIAEC is an example where the same things work at one place but not at the other.
That is where management comes in. Their job is not to be liked, it is to do what has to be done for the good of the company and by extension the good of the employees (themselves included). If they don't achieve that then more senior people than them will shut a company down. If everyone doesn't want to get on board then they run the risk of other people putting them out of work.
It's not pretty but it is a fact. If you are not continually looking for a more cost effective way of doing things then somebody else will build an advantage and you will suffer accordingly.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to refrain in a tit for tat. Romulus, you must be happier when you pick up your car when it's serviced and they throw in the 'complimentary' vacuum and car wash.
Below the aircraft furnishings is the matrix of engineered components, wiring and structure that makes up a modern airliner and hidden from pax view. The stuff we care about.
There is no doubt the offerings from SIA, MAS and CX make up a formidable marketing product. The IFE, mood lighting, seats, menu's etc all add up to a great air travel experience, oh, and the girls.
But back to the aircraft, if you only had seen some actions and heard some conversations that I have had to endure and undo over the years, it would make you cringe at what might be happening under your plush seat at 38000'. Hey but what the hell, you left on time and arrived on time, ate well and watched a nice movie. Served by a delightful young lady and all this was cheaper than the Qantas fare. You didn't even come close to falling out of the sky.
From a purely engineering point of view, it's not that 'fair' playing field.
Below the aircraft furnishings is the matrix of engineered components, wiring and structure that makes up a modern airliner and hidden from pax view. The stuff we care about.
There is no doubt the offerings from SIA, MAS and CX make up a formidable marketing product. The IFE, mood lighting, seats, menu's etc all add up to a great air travel experience, oh, and the girls.
But back to the aircraft, if you only had seen some actions and heard some conversations that I have had to endure and undo over the years, it would make you cringe at what might be happening under your plush seat at 38000'. Hey but what the hell, you left on time and arrived on time, ate well and watched a nice movie. Served by a delightful young lady and all this was cheaper than the Qantas fare. You didn't even come close to falling out of the sky.
From a purely engineering point of view, it's not that 'fair' playing field.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you accept that then you are accepting that all work can be performed more effectively by SIAEC and that logically it will be offshored. Even more scarily the new term of "nearshoring" which refers to sending stuff to NZ for an immediate 30% cost advantage kicks in.
That is where management comes in. Their job is not to be liked, it is to do what has to be done for the good of the company and by extension the good of the employees (themselves included). If they don't achieve that then more senior people than them will shut a company down. If everyone doesn't want to get on board then they run the risk of other people putting them out of work.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clipped - I may have missed something but from an engineering perspective an A380 is an A380, regardless of whether it is SIA, BA, QF or whoever. Have any of them had a major engineering problem recently (and I leave the QF engine incident out of this as that was an OEM issue).
Same thing for 747s, 777s etc.
How many have fallen from the sky due to engineering maintenance issues in the last decade?
The continual claim that QF do the best maintenance engineering requires examination. They might very well do the MOST maintenance but does that mean the best?
Same thing for 747s, 777s etc.
How many have fallen from the sky due to engineering maintenance issues in the last decade?
The continual claim that QF do the best maintenance engineering requires examination. They might very well do the MOST maintenance but does that mean the best?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeromedic - agreed. But how do you build good relations?
My view of the world is that you talk frequently to everyone on a personal level and also at the crew level. It takes a bucketload of time but management MUST walk the floor every single day they are on site and they must say hello to people they lead. By name.
And you don't sugarcoat. If things are tough then tell people.
You don't lie. If things are going well you tell people.
If things are commercial in confidence then you tell people that.
There will be plenty of times that the message is unpopular but guess what, that's life. Better to be genuinely informed than living in ignorance even if it appears to be bliss.
Be friendly but don't expect to be friends.
Bear in mind one of the key unstated functions of management is to be a common target. If that target isn't there then the crew fracture and form cliques and infighting emerges in the workforce. And that is far worse than a united workforce who dislike management (note this is very different to hating management QF style). It's not something that people openly discuss but it is what happens.
My view of the world is that you talk frequently to everyone on a personal level and also at the crew level. It takes a bucketload of time but management MUST walk the floor every single day they are on site and they must say hello to people they lead. By name.
And you don't sugarcoat. If things are tough then tell people.
You don't lie. If things are going well you tell people.
If things are commercial in confidence then you tell people that.
There will be plenty of times that the message is unpopular but guess what, that's life. Better to be genuinely informed than living in ignorance even if it appears to be bliss.
Be friendly but don't expect to be friends.
Bear in mind one of the key unstated functions of management is to be a common target. If that target isn't there then the crew fracture and form cliques and infighting emerges in the workforce. And that is far worse than a united workforce who dislike management (note this is very different to hating management QF style). It's not something that people openly discuss but it is what happens.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus,
Once again, agreed.
In short, you add on these points:
1. Never forget their names, they'll never forget yours.
2. Do what you say you will.
3. Remember that trust is hard won and easily lost.
4. Be human.
Finally, there is no justice in managing because those that can, end up being supervised by those that can't. Go figure.
Once again, agreed.
In short, you add on these points:
1. Never forget their names, they'll never forget yours.
2. Do what you say you will.
3. Remember that trust is hard won and easily lost.
4. Be human.
Finally, there is no justice in managing because those that can, end up being supervised by those that can't. Go figure.
Agree with Romulus. It is necessary to act like a human being to be a good manager and I am also coming to the view that most of the "scietific management" tools we get taught at MBA school and elsewhere are both useless and dangerous, in the hands of anyone who does not have sufficient background knowledge of that which they purport to manage.
- Useless because it is axiomatic that a natural leader doesn't ask anyone to do anything that they couldn't at least have a good go at themselves, or at least enough empathy and experience to understand the amount of skill and effort that is required of their staff.
Without that background, you are just a formal leader with zero credibility and will be treated as such, probably curtiously, unless your obvious lack of knowledge and disinterest in learning becomes either dangerous or annoying.
- Dangerous because a lifetime of experience has finally taught me that the "scientific management" camp sells the myth that anyone can manage anything if they only follow the textbooks. This is bull****. I've been on both sides of that argument and proved its bull****, and I have the scars to prove it. The danger comes from a manager totally out of their depth not understanding the impact of their decisions and thinking they are doing OK, which can destroy the business.
Scientific management techniques can be effective - if you have the basic industy knowledge to know how and when to use them. By way of example, a young acquaintance has been hired by BHP as a mining engineer. Their training is exemplary and by the time he gets to manage anything he will have at least Ten years practical experience under his belt. THEN you do the MBA.....
The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.
So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.
Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.
This is what happened to Ansett. The staff cuts and penny pinching happened at leastr Five years before the B767 issues became apparent and when CASA and ATSB metaphorically "looked under the hood" all they found was a total mess and they had no choice but to pull the AOC.
By sheer coincidence I just ordered a new Landcruiser yesterday. My Eighteen year old Turbo diesel landcruiser is on its last legs - slipping clutch, blowing oil, torn upholstery, dents, electrical issues and bad paintwork. I could have fixed all those issues one by one as they appeared, but deliberately chose to "harvest" a few years ago, unlike a mate whose cruiser is the same age and still in apple pie order. What concerns me is that Qantas might adopt the same philosophy as I did.
- Useless because it is axiomatic that a natural leader doesn't ask anyone to do anything that they couldn't at least have a good go at themselves, or at least enough empathy and experience to understand the amount of skill and effort that is required of their staff.
Without that background, you are just a formal leader with zero credibility and will be treated as such, probably curtiously, unless your obvious lack of knowledge and disinterest in learning becomes either dangerous or annoying.
- Dangerous because a lifetime of experience has finally taught me that the "scientific management" camp sells the myth that anyone can manage anything if they only follow the textbooks. This is bull****. I've been on both sides of that argument and proved its bull****, and I have the scars to prove it. The danger comes from a manager totally out of their depth not understanding the impact of their decisions and thinking they are doing OK, which can destroy the business.
Scientific management techniques can be effective - if you have the basic industy knowledge to know how and when to use them. By way of example, a young acquaintance has been hired by BHP as a mining engineer. Their training is exemplary and by the time he gets to manage anything he will have at least Ten years practical experience under his belt. THEN you do the MBA.....
The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.
So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.
Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.
This is what happened to Ansett. The staff cuts and penny pinching happened at leastr Five years before the B767 issues became apparent and when CASA and ATSB metaphorically "looked under the hood" all they found was a total mess and they had no choice but to pull the AOC.
By sheer coincidence I just ordered a new Landcruiser yesterday. My Eighteen year old Turbo diesel landcruiser is on its last legs - slipping clutch, blowing oil, torn upholstery, dents, electrical issues and bad paintwork. I could have fixed all those issues one by one as they appeared, but deliberately chose to "harvest" a few years ago, unlike a mate whose cruiser is the same age and still in apple pie order. What concerns me is that Qantas might adopt the same philosophy as I did.
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Jul 2013 at 21:36.