VIRGIN AUSTRALIA MAINTENANCE
Thread Starter
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA MAINTENANCE
I've just been told that a Virgin Australia A330 was ferried to Manila yesterday for maintenance. Why aren't there any critical voices raised about this? Qantas does it and everyone's ire is at fever pitch. It's competitor does so, and there's a deafening silence. Surely there is or are a facility or facilities in Australia that could satisfactorily acquit the work without the need to ferry the aircraft between Australia and Manila - an expensive exercise alone? WTF? 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin maintains its 73 fleet in NZ. When an aircraft comes back from there we don't see the same quality (or lack of) as we do with aircraft that return from Asia.
The ALAEA is not happy with Virgin maintaining anything in Asia. The difference between them and Qantas is this. Qantas had it all in Australia, HM facilities, staff, workshops, experience and apprentices. Virgin started with nothing.
Virgin are increasing staff and building to a point where in a few years time they will possibly be able to do HM here. You cannot snap your fingers and just do this when you started with nothing. On the other hand Qantas are dismantling everything even when it is done here cheaper. They are moving one way, Virgin are heading the other.
The ALAEA is not happy with Virgin maintaining anything in Asia. The difference between them and Qantas is this. Qantas had it all in Australia, HM facilities, staff, workshops, experience and apprentices. Virgin started with nothing.
Virgin are increasing staff and building to a point where in a few years time they will possibly be able to do HM here. You cannot snap your fingers and just do this when you started with nothing. On the other hand Qantas are dismantling everything even when it is done here cheaper. They are moving one way, Virgin are heading the other.
Virgin will never do heavy maintenance here ever. The 'critical mass' doesn't exist, it never will without foresight and without having the capability in place to do multiple lines of heavy maintenance at once. Qantas is only doing it because they're bound by law to do it. Jetstar send 90% of its heavy maintenance offshore. Virgin send 100% of its heavy maintenance offshore.
Foresight is what LTP and ST Aero and SASCO and HAECO show. Build it and they will come. Australia in general has a different mentality, wait for them to come then we will build it only if we absolutely have to.
Just a look at the state of our airports, terminals, transport infrastructure, essential services etc will make that plainly obvious.
Foresight is what LTP and ST Aero and SASCO and HAECO show. Build it and they will come. Australia in general has a different mentality, wait for them to come then we will build it only if we absolutely have to.
Just a look at the state of our airports, terminals, transport infrastructure, essential services etc will make that plainly obvious.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tullamarine, Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAEA Fed Sec, last I checked, the first A in ALAEA stood for 'Australian'. You're not the NZLAEA. Aren't you supposed to be lobbying to keep licensed engineering jobs in Australia, like the name suggests? I hardly think the ALAEA would keep silent if QF decided to ship their 737s to NZ for heavy maintenance. Don't forget that VA sending their 737s to NZ for maintenance was essentially the nail in the coffin of JHAS heavy maintenance at Tullamarine, where I'm sure some ALAEA members used to have jobs.
And what about what the Ken originally said? He wasn't referring to a 73 going to NZ for heavy, he mentioned an A330 going to Manila (ie. Asia) for maintenance. Has the ALAEA decried this "blatant disregard for Australian travellers' safety" in the same way as you would if it were a QF A330? The deathly silence would suggest otherwise.
As 600ft-lb said: VA will never do HM in Australia. How long is the ALAEA going to give VA a free ride before you finally hold them to account for not taking responsibility for the maintenance on their own aircraft? The whole thing smacks of double standards by the ALAEA: one standard for VA/JQ, a different (and ultimately inefficient and unattainable) standard for QF.
And what about what the Ken originally said? He wasn't referring to a 73 going to NZ for heavy, he mentioned an A330 going to Manila (ie. Asia) for maintenance. Has the ALAEA decried this "blatant disregard for Australian travellers' safety" in the same way as you would if it were a QF A330? The deathly silence would suggest otherwise.
As 600ft-lb said: VA will never do HM in Australia. How long is the ALAEA going to give VA a free ride before you finally hold them to account for not taking responsibility for the maintenance on their own aircraft? The whole thing smacks of double standards by the ALAEA: one standard for VA/JQ, a different (and ultimately inefficient and unattainable) standard for QF.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy Maint.
Hi 600,
You mentioned, "The 'critical mass' doesn't exist" , and
"without having the capability in place to do multiple lines of heavy maintenance at once",
I was wondering, what no. Of aircraft do you believe would be required of a particular type to justify Heavy Maint. Here.
We had about 80 737's and more often than not 2-3 lines in H/M at one
Time, "multiple lines" etc, plus wide body capability... Didn't help.
Also, we have a family friend that works for Goodrich, said to me you need minimum 25-30 aircraft to justify having your own in house overhaul shop for landing gears, then above that number, cost more to outsource, but that's what happened anyways.. I personally think ultimately the reasons for offshoring are purely employee, OH&s, workplace relations reasons, less so money.
Cheers
You mentioned, "The 'critical mass' doesn't exist" , and
"without having the capability in place to do multiple lines of heavy maintenance at once",
I was wondering, what no. Of aircraft do you believe would be required of a particular type to justify Heavy Maint. Here.
We had about 80 737's and more often than not 2-3 lines in H/M at one
Time, "multiple lines" etc, plus wide body capability... Didn't help.
Also, we have a family friend that works for Goodrich, said to me you need minimum 25-30 aircraft to justify having your own in house overhaul shop for landing gears, then above that number, cost more to outsource, but that's what happened anyways.. I personally think ultimately the reasons for offshoring are purely employee, OH&s, workplace relations reasons, less so money.
Cheers
Last edited by Perspective; 4th Jan 2014 at 03:18.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently ANZES handles the following for Virgin.
73G/73H - AKL/CHC
77W - AKL
E190 - CHC
I wouldn't be suprized if the ATR's came to NSN when there next heavy maintenance is due.
As the NZ ownership of VA keeps growing, and they taking a seat on the VA board. I'd say it would not be long till we see VA ordering A320s, NZ has a huge interest in the IAE 2500s
73G/73H - AKL/CHC
77W - AKL
E190 - CHC
I wouldn't be suprized if the ATR's came to NSN when there next heavy maintenance is due.
As the NZ ownership of VA keeps growing, and they taking a seat on the VA board. I'd say it would not be long till we see VA ordering A320s, NZ has a huge interest in the IAE 2500s
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have pointed out, I think the main difference is that Virgin and others just starting up do not have these facilities yet, where Qantas who have been around forever already have everything they could possibly need IN Australia. 
I am surprised Qantas would be allowed to send any heavy maintenance off shore, back in the 1960s Ansett planned to send their Carvairs to Hong Kong for due heavy maintenance and it was blocked by the then Australian Government as it was against the National Interest.
The then Government wanted to keep the work here in Australia, partly to keep all the already established Ansett facilities open and employing Aussies, but also they said to keep the facilities here in case of any International unrest or wars, and this was before all of the terrorism etc, so you would think I would apply even more today to Qantas being basically the only facilities left here.
I am surprised Qantas would be allowed to send any heavy maintenance off shore, back in the 1960s Ansett planned to send their Carvairs to Hong Kong for due heavy maintenance and it was blocked by the then Australian Government as it was against the National Interest.
The then Government wanted to keep the work here in Australia, partly to keep all the already established Ansett facilities open and employing Aussies, but also they said to keep the facilities here in case of any International unrest or wars, and this was before all of the terrorism etc, so you would think I would apply even more today to Qantas being basically the only facilities left here.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"ALAEA Fed Sec, last I checked, the first A in ALAEA stood for 'Australian'. You're not the NZLAEA. Aren't you supposed to be lobbying to keep licensed engineering jobs in Australia, like the name suggests? I hardly think the ALAEA would keep silent if QF decided to ship their 737s to NZ for heavy maintenance. "
What a load of rubbish. By stating that we haven't seen the same quality issues come out of NZ doesn't mean I am lobbying to keep work there. If I said that their quality was not up to scratch that would just be an outright lie. When I post here and talk publically I cannot do so without reason and supporting evidence.
Whilst we haven't seen a continual flow of errors and mistakes coming out of NZ, the Asian facilities are continuing to send crap work back here. We have countless examples errors, failed audits and late aircraft from the facilities in Hkg, SIn and Manila.
BTW Qantas did send 737's to NZ and the ALAEA did keep silent because we had no evidence to nail them on. This is not a case that we only critisise Qantas. We got stuck into Virgin over towing practices. Suggest you get back to the Qantas crisis centre 000.
What a load of rubbish. By stating that we haven't seen the same quality issues come out of NZ doesn't mean I am lobbying to keep work there. If I said that their quality was not up to scratch that would just be an outright lie. When I post here and talk publically I cannot do so without reason and supporting evidence.
Whilst we haven't seen a continual flow of errors and mistakes coming out of NZ, the Asian facilities are continuing to send crap work back here. We have countless examples errors, failed audits and late aircraft from the facilities in Hkg, SIn and Manila.
BTW Qantas did send 737's to NZ and the ALAEA did keep silent because we had no evidence to nail them on. This is not a case that we only critisise Qantas. We got stuck into Virgin over towing practices. Suggest you get back to the Qantas crisis centre 000.
Thread Starter
For the hard of hearing, or for those who don't want to hear:
FACT. Qantas is pilloried for having done some of its maintenance off-shore.
FACT. Virgin Australia, irrespective of ownership, holds itself to the Australian nation that it's an Australian carrier.
FACT. Virgin Australia has most of its maintenance performed off-shore.
FACT. There are facilities and a skilled workforce in Australia that could acquit this maintenance.
Question 1. Why is there such silence in respect of Virgin Australia's off-shore policies?
Question 2. Why is Qantas so trenchantly criticized when its competitor is not?
Question 3. Is Virgin's off-shore maintenance of such a standard that it's more acceptable to Australian unions and the travelling public?
Question 4. What have the unions done, if anything, to bring Virgin's maintenance on-shore!
FACT. Qantas is pilloried for having done some of its maintenance off-shore.
FACT. Virgin Australia, irrespective of ownership, holds itself to the Australian nation that it's an Australian carrier.
FACT. Virgin Australia has most of its maintenance performed off-shore.
FACT. There are facilities and a skilled workforce in Australia that could acquit this maintenance.
Question 1. Why is there such silence in respect of Virgin Australia's off-shore policies?
Question 2. Why is Qantas so trenchantly criticized when its competitor is not?
Question 3. Is Virgin's off-shore maintenance of such a standard that it's more acceptable to Australian unions and the travelling public?
Question 4. What have the unions done, if anything, to bring Virgin's maintenance on-shore!
Thread Starter
sending there planes back to NZ
ATRs HM is done in Singapore - paya lebar.
A330 Lufthansa technik Philippines
B77W SIAEC
E190 - some company in Portugal
B737 - ANZES
A330 Lufthansa technik Philippines
B77W SIAEC
E190 - some company in Portugal
B737 - ANZES
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FACT. Virgin Australia has most of its maintenance performed off-shore.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATRs HM is done in Singapore - paya lebar.
A330 Lufthansa technik Philippines
B77W SIAEC
E190 - some company in Portugal
B737 - ANZES
A330 Lufthansa technik Philippines
B77W SIAEC
E190 - some company in Portugal
B737 - ANZES
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AKL
Age: 34
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't realize Virgin's aircraft were ever in NZ in the first place - most are on the VH register. The fact that NZ own 26% of VA is meaningless for the point of this discussion.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are facilities and a skilled workforce in Australia that could acquit this maintenance.
I doubt if Qantas would do it for them, just as neither Qantas or Ansett would do it for Compass.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didnt answer either of 000's questions fed sec!
I never originally tackled the individual thrust of his argument about one plane going to Manila. We don't attack Qantas for each aircraft they send overseas either.
It's funny that a few people appear unhappy and raise a point about us never attacking Virgin in the press (which is not true anyway). The same people never want to know why we aren't attacking Jetstar for sending aircraft overseas.