Qantas to establish A380 maintenance facility at LAX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas to establish A380 maintenance facility at LAX
Interested to hear thoughts on this idea.
I was under the impression some airlines were trying to offload A380's and the maintenance market may be shrinking.
Qantas boss Alan Joyce opens hi-tech A380 service ?shed? in Los Angeles to make airline millions
I was under the impression some airlines were trying to offload A380's and the maintenance market may be shrinking.
Qantas boss Alan Joyce opens hi-tech A380 service ?shed? in Los Angeles to make airline millions
Good luck rather than good management, but the US is now effectively a Tax Haven. I am sure this hasn't escaped their notice - accountancy is one thing they do seem to be good at.
accountancy is one thing they do seem to be good at.
Mexican builders are obviously substantially cheaper. But the don has that sorted.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...25ae3faf231002
The parties also disagree about the cost of maintaining the aircraft locally. Qantas estimates it would cost at least $100 million to set up an A380 hangar in Australia, but the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has obtained a $27m quote for a hangar and docking facilities.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...25ae3faf231002
The parties also disagree about the cost of maintaining the aircraft locally. Qantas estimates it would cost at least $100 million to set up an A380 hangar in Australia, but the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has obtained a $27m quote for a hangar and docking facilities.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Qantas grounded their fleet one of our claims was for this hangar to be built in Australia. Qantas claimed that they couldn’t afford the $100m to build it despite our quote for $27m to get it ready. Actually the Foxes who own Avalon airport would have built the hangar themselves and just rented it to Qf. This idea that they will make money from leasing the LAX hangar to make money is incorrect. Qantas have moved from their previous LAX hangar which they used every single day. They will not have any available slots to sell to other operators.
The real reason for this nice new shiny shed being built up North is labour costs and standards. I know this may sound weird but they actually want people working on planes who haven’t got any understanding of what they are looking at. Our LAMEs are airworthiness inspectors, much like a roadworthy inspector who issues you a green slip to sell your car. As the car owner, you want a hassle free inspector who will hand over the greenslip without telling you to replace the tyres and windscreen. That mentality has now embedded itself into Aviation management. They don’t want people there as airworthiness inspectors who can identify damaged or worn parts that need replacing. Management just want that airworthiness signature to go in so they can continue to make money. Of course this is a false economy because the problems just lay dormant and come out later when you least expect it.
This hangar has been built for 787 overnight checks called A checks. Now, every plane in the Qantas fleet has it’s A checks undertaken in Australia. Our blokes are competent, experienced and find things wrong before it is too late. This is not a response claiming that we are smarter than others, I am posting it as a factual review of the experience of a comparable workforce in Australia compared to Los Angeles. LAX has about 90 Engineers now and I’d compare it to maybe Sydney Domestic where there are similar numbers. Now I’d like to demonstrate the experience gap between the two.
SDT run with 4 DMMs (Foreman who are LAMEs), and 12 Senior LAMEs. There are 54 LAMEs and 18 unlicenced Engineers or AMEs. The LAMEs all average about 30 years each in the industry, nearly all at Qantas. The AMEs average at least 10 years each. There are 70 LAMEs and 18 AMEs or a ratio of 3.9 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 2,280 years in aviation.
LAX run with 4 Station Engineers (same and a Senior LAME), 18 LAMEs and 72 AMEs. I only know a few of the LAMEs but will assume they also have 30 years in the industry each. It was recently reported to me that the experience of the AMEs is roughly as follows. 24 of them have less than 3 months with Qantas and are mostly kids out of school who have to pass three exams about aircraft and then in the US, they are AMEs. Another 30 or so have between 1 and 2 years with Qantas. I will assume the rest, 10 years working on aircraft. There are 22 LAMEs and 72 AMEs or a ratio of .3 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 880 years or 1/3 the experience of a workforce of the same number in Australia.
In reality it works like this. An Australian AME with 10 years’ experience has nearly 4 LAMEs about them to make sure they are doing the job properly. An LAX AME could be straight out of school with less than 3 months experience on planes and the one LAME supervising him also has to supervise 2 other AMEs of minimal experience at the same time. A couple of weeks ago this hotch potch group completed a documented part A check of 400 hours work they claim to have done with only about 250 hours of available labour. The only possible explanation for this is that they rushed work and/or didn’t do it properly. Some of the fundamental errors coming out of LAX are astounding. Things like wires being crossed over on instruments and tooling being left around moving parts. The blokes in LAX were called in last year and told that the next one of them to make a mistake will lose their job. Living with threats like this only encourages these guys to hide their own errors or lose their income.
LAX for Qantas maintenance is a disaster waiting to happen.
The real reason for this nice new shiny shed being built up North is labour costs and standards. I know this may sound weird but they actually want people working on planes who haven’t got any understanding of what they are looking at. Our LAMEs are airworthiness inspectors, much like a roadworthy inspector who issues you a green slip to sell your car. As the car owner, you want a hassle free inspector who will hand over the greenslip without telling you to replace the tyres and windscreen. That mentality has now embedded itself into Aviation management. They don’t want people there as airworthiness inspectors who can identify damaged or worn parts that need replacing. Management just want that airworthiness signature to go in so they can continue to make money. Of course this is a false economy because the problems just lay dormant and come out later when you least expect it.
This hangar has been built for 787 overnight checks called A checks. Now, every plane in the Qantas fleet has it’s A checks undertaken in Australia. Our blokes are competent, experienced and find things wrong before it is too late. This is not a response claiming that we are smarter than others, I am posting it as a factual review of the experience of a comparable workforce in Australia compared to Los Angeles. LAX has about 90 Engineers now and I’d compare it to maybe Sydney Domestic where there are similar numbers. Now I’d like to demonstrate the experience gap between the two.
SDT run with 4 DMMs (Foreman who are LAMEs), and 12 Senior LAMEs. There are 54 LAMEs and 18 unlicenced Engineers or AMEs. The LAMEs all average about 30 years each in the industry, nearly all at Qantas. The AMEs average at least 10 years each. There are 70 LAMEs and 18 AMEs or a ratio of 3.9 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 2,280 years in aviation.
LAX run with 4 Station Engineers (same and a Senior LAME), 18 LAMEs and 72 AMEs. I only know a few of the LAMEs but will assume they also have 30 years in the industry each. It was recently reported to me that the experience of the AMEs is roughly as follows. 24 of them have less than 3 months with Qantas and are mostly kids out of school who have to pass three exams about aircraft and then in the US, they are AMEs. Another 30 or so have between 1 and 2 years with Qantas. I will assume the rest, 10 years working on aircraft. There are 22 LAMEs and 72 AMEs or a ratio of .3 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 880 years or 1/3 the experience of a workforce of the same number in Australia.
In reality it works like this. An Australian AME with 10 years’ experience has nearly 4 LAMEs about them to make sure they are doing the job properly. An LAX AME could be straight out of school with less than 3 months experience on planes and the one LAME supervising him also has to supervise 2 other AMEs of minimal experience at the same time. A couple of weeks ago this hotch potch group completed a documented part A check of 400 hours work they claim to have done with only about 250 hours of available labour. The only possible explanation for this is that they rushed work and/or didn’t do it properly. Some of the fundamental errors coming out of LAX are astounding. Things like wires being crossed over on instruments and tooling being left around moving parts. The blokes in LAX were called in last year and told that the next one of them to make a mistake will lose their job. Living with threats like this only encourages these guys to hide their own errors or lose their income.
LAX for Qantas maintenance is a disaster waiting to happen.
ALAEA Fed Sec, I thought the little leprechaun had advised his highly experienced engineers that his shiny new jets don't need much maintenance anymore?
Was this not the reason for removing the Heavy Maintenance Facility in Avalon a few years ago? And suddenly now they need one again...and the staff associated... beggars belief doesn't it?!
Was this not the reason for removing the Heavy Maintenance Facility in Avalon a few years ago? And suddenly now they need one again...and the staff associated... beggars belief doesn't it?!
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be related to Qantas wanting to hold hands with AA.
Qantas has another stab at American Airlines alliance | afr.com
By selling its soul.
The Leprechaun is only concerned about show than substance, its the kind of animal he is.
His vision is for the QF panels that drop off on take off will be interchangeable with AA and vice-versa.
Qantas has another stab at American Airlines alliance | afr.com
By selling its soul.
The Leprechaun is only concerned about show than substance, its the kind of animal he is.
His vision is for the QF panels that drop off on take off will be interchangeable with AA and vice-versa.
ALAEA Fed Sec
I always find your posts to be balanced and well presented and think it's a pity there's not more like you about the industry.
I'd like to comment on a couple of your points if I may.
I do wonder that QF engineers have become very "Gold Plated" in what they consider is worn and not worn? I don't have experience with heavy aircraft maintenance but over the years have had plenty of experience with light aircraft maintenance. There can be night and day difference between what some shops consider needs replacement or what work an aircraft needs to make it airworthy. Usually the reality is somewhere in between.
The ratio of LAMEs to AMEs seems out of whack to me. If the AME's are worth their salt they shouldn't need 3.9 LAMEs each to watch over them.
I don't agree with offshoring work like this, it's a pity you cannot get the bean counters to understand the folly of their ways.
I see this as the thin end of the wedge. You need to find a way to make it palatable for QF to do the work in OZ and at the same time maintain a good safety standard.
I always find your posts to be balanced and well presented and think it's a pity there's not more like you about the industry.
I'd like to comment on a couple of your points if I may.
Our LAMEs are airworthiness inspectors, much like a roadworthy inspector who issues you a green slip to sell your car. As the car owner, you want a hassle free inspector who will hand over the greenslip without telling you to replace the tyres and windscreen. That mentality has now embedded itself into Aviation management. They don’t want people there as airworthiness inspectors who can identify damaged or worn parts that need replacing.
SDT run with 4 DMMs (Foreman who are LAMEs), and 12 Senior LAMEs. There are 54 LAMEs and 18 unlicenced Engineers or AMEs. The LAMEs all average about 30 years each in the industry, nearly all at Qantas. The AMEs average at least 10 years each. There are 70 LAMEs and 18 AMEs or a ratio of 3.9 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 2,280 years in aviation.
I don't agree with offshoring work like this, it's a pity you cannot get the bean counters to understand the folly of their ways.
I see this as the thin end of the wedge. You need to find a way to make it palatable for QF to do the work in OZ and at the same time maintain a good safety standard.
Can someone check my numbers? I was having a look at the relative numbers from the qantas data books, available at the qantas investors website.
Comparing 07/08 to 15/16 it makes entertaining reading when you consider the arguments for offshoring of everything from pot plants to engineering functions.
07/08 total revenues $M 15 627
15/16 $M 16 200
07/08 total qantas passengers (m) 29.4
15/16 total qantas passengers (m) 28.2
07/08 total jetstar passengers (m) 9.2
15/16 total jetstar passengers (m) 23.3
07/08 profits $M 1 362
15/16 profits $M 1 532
Number of rights for executive incentive plans
08/04 -03/08 6 121 033
10/13 - 09/14 58 232 000
CEO Pays
Dixon 08 $ 9526 411
Joyce 16 $ 12 960 000
The man earning $35 000+ per day has to hit the targets for this years incentive plans.
Comparing 07/08 to 15/16 it makes entertaining reading when you consider the arguments for offshoring of everything from pot plants to engineering functions.
07/08 total revenues $M 15 627
15/16 $M 16 200
07/08 total qantas passengers (m) 29.4
15/16 total qantas passengers (m) 28.2
07/08 total jetstar passengers (m) 9.2
15/16 total jetstar passengers (m) 23.3
07/08 profits $M 1 362
15/16 profits $M 1 532
Number of rights for executive incentive plans
08/04 -03/08 6 121 033
10/13 - 09/14 58 232 000
CEO Pays
Dixon 08 $ 9526 411
Joyce 16 $ 12 960 000
The man earning $35 000+ per day has to hit the targets for this years incentive plans.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
I have worked as a heavy jet LAME, a Flight Engineer and a light aircraft LAME over a 40 year period including flying into and through the USA.
Firstly there is a huge difference between light and heavy aircraft maintenance assuming that we are talking about heavy jets verses single engine Cessnas.
One of the major differences is that jets run up huge amounts of hours compared to light aircraft. Thus it can be ok to defer a minor issue on a Cessna to the next 100 hourly but not on a long haul jet. Remember unlike your local flying school bug smasher who mainly does circuits, a failure on a long haul may ground you on the other side of the world with 500 pax and nowhere to go.
The other issue that the Fed Sec refers to is skill levels in the US. I have been out of that scene for some time but with some rare outstanding exceptions my opinion is that the overall A&P (equiv. to a LAME)is not good.
A typical arrival would end up in the US with a conversation like this.
FE "We have XX defect." A&P "What do you want me to replace?"
In the rest of the world the same question would be met with a statement of what the LAME intended to do. From questioning the A&P this wasn't a show of respect for the FE, it was a very worrying lack of knowledge. As I said there were outstanding exceptions but they were rare.
My feeling was that the situation that I saw was a direct result of their training which was college based not apprentice based.
Wunwing
I have worked as a heavy jet LAME, a Flight Engineer and a light aircraft LAME over a 40 year period including flying into and through the USA.
Firstly there is a huge difference between light and heavy aircraft maintenance assuming that we are talking about heavy jets verses single engine Cessnas.
One of the major differences is that jets run up huge amounts of hours compared to light aircraft. Thus it can be ok to defer a minor issue on a Cessna to the next 100 hourly but not on a long haul jet. Remember unlike your local flying school bug smasher who mainly does circuits, a failure on a long haul may ground you on the other side of the world with 500 pax and nowhere to go.
The other issue that the Fed Sec refers to is skill levels in the US. I have been out of that scene for some time but with some rare outstanding exceptions my opinion is that the overall A&P (equiv. to a LAME)is not good.
A typical arrival would end up in the US with a conversation like this.
FE "We have XX defect." A&P "What do you want me to replace?"
In the rest of the world the same question would be met with a statement of what the LAME intended to do. From questioning the A&P this wasn't a show of respect for the FE, it was a very worrying lack of knowledge. As I said there were outstanding exceptions but they were rare.
My feeling was that the situation that I saw was a direct result of their training which was college based not apprentice based.
Wunwing
Wunwing, I understand that heavy jet maintenance is very different to light aircraft maintenance and the considerable knock on effects of an aircraft being stranded at a remote port.
I was trying to illustrate that if there is variations between GA maintenance providers then it's highly likely the same applies to heavy jet maintenance providers.
I agree regarding the skill levels you talk about. The ratio of 3.9 LAMEs for every AME is probably about right for the LAX setup, but is well out of whack for long serving skilled AMEs in Oz.
However the bean counters don't know the difference between the standards of an LAME in Oz to one in the US. They both have the same name so surely they have the same training/expertise.
I was trying to illustrate that if there is variations between GA maintenance providers then it's highly likely the same applies to heavy jet maintenance providers.
I agree regarding the skill levels you talk about. The ratio of 3.9 LAMEs for every AME is probably about right for the LAX setup, but is well out of whack for long serving skilled AMEs in Oz.
However the bean counters don't know the difference between the standards of an LAME in Oz to one in the US. They both have the same name so surely they have the same training/expertise.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
In my experience there is, but once you leave the high end ones its all downhill. Since the LAME has to sign out the work of those AMEs I think the Australian ratio is correct. I cant see how beyond that a LAME can supervise, inspect and do the paperwork to a reasonable standard to discharge his legally mandated safety role.
I once appeared before a Parliamentary enquiry and was asked by an MP why I disagreed with the way my employers maintenance was going. I replied that in the past when I called in a defect to main base we were met by a senior LAME with a manual and an apprentice with tools and a spare part and the defect was fixed. We now had moved to cheaper overseas tradesmen on work visas who spent the whole turnaround achieving nothing due to their poor knowledge and the aircraft was dispatched with the defect open.
The companies line was that the visa guys were cheaper but my position was that surely 30 minutes of an expensive LAME is cheaper than 2 hours of 3 cheaper staff and an open defect.
The company CEO who was on after me was not happy with my position but to me it was his position that was illogical. At the time the MPs took my side of the argument which didn't impress Mr CEO at all.
All this was a while ago now. MPs seem no longer interested in "jobsngrowth" except as a mantra whenever anyone pokes a microphone in front of them, but from what I'm told by my many friends who are still around things haven't got any better.
Wunwing
In my experience there is, but once you leave the high end ones its all downhill. Since the LAME has to sign out the work of those AMEs I think the Australian ratio is correct. I cant see how beyond that a LAME can supervise, inspect and do the paperwork to a reasonable standard to discharge his legally mandated safety role.
I once appeared before a Parliamentary enquiry and was asked by an MP why I disagreed with the way my employers maintenance was going. I replied that in the past when I called in a defect to main base we were met by a senior LAME with a manual and an apprentice with tools and a spare part and the defect was fixed. We now had moved to cheaper overseas tradesmen on work visas who spent the whole turnaround achieving nothing due to their poor knowledge and the aircraft was dispatched with the defect open.
The companies line was that the visa guys were cheaper but my position was that surely 30 minutes of an expensive LAME is cheaper than 2 hours of 3 cheaper staff and an open defect.
The company CEO who was on after me was not happy with my position but to me it was his position that was illogical. At the time the MPs took my side of the argument which didn't impress Mr CEO at all.
All this was a while ago now. MPs seem no longer interested in "jobsngrowth" except as a mantra whenever anyone pokes a microphone in front of them, but from what I'm told by my many friends who are still around things haven't got any better.
Wunwing
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAME/AME ratios in Australia vary. Domestic terminals tend to have more LAMEs because it is usually one person only sent to a defect and it makes sense to sign the defect off themselves. The example I used was Domestic here. Without checking the exact numbers, I think the ratios in various other departments would be about -
Qantas Sydney International Terminal - 2.5 Lames per AME
Qantas Sydney Hangars - 1.5 LAMEs per AME
Qantas Heavy Maintenance Brisbane - 1 LAME per AME
An AME in Australia has a minimum 4 year apprenticeship behind them. This US ratio of 1 LAME per 3 AMEs is dangerous, particularly considering that most of them have less than 4 years in the job and in Australia would be considered apprentices.
Qantas Sydney International Terminal - 2.5 Lames per AME
Qantas Sydney Hangars - 1.5 LAMEs per AME
Qantas Heavy Maintenance Brisbane - 1 LAME per AME
An AME in Australia has a minimum 4 year apprenticeship behind them. This US ratio of 1 LAME per 3 AMEs is dangerous, particularly considering that most of them have less than 4 years in the job and in Australia would be considered apprentices.
my position was that surely 30 minutes of an expensive LAME is cheaper than 2 hours of 3 cheaper staff and an open defect
But I still struggle with 3.9 LAMEs per AME.
Where else in the world do LAME's or their equivalents out number tradesmen by nearly 4 to 1?
Is it CASA rules or EBA conditions?
I know it's not 3.9 to 1 this side of the ditch and I'm not aware of any safety/quality issues. I'm pretty sure tradesmen outnumber LAMEs.
I recall a few years back there was spirited discussion on how many staff were needed for a push back especially with the new equipment being deployed. I don't remember the numbers but I think the new equipment enabled push back with just one person instead of the six or so that was currently required.
The reaction at the time made me think the opposition to the new methods was purely based on job protection. The one man push back has worked very well over here.
I cannot feel the 3.9 to 1 ratio is also job protection. Don't get me wrong I don't like seeing highly skilled jobs disappearing, but there comes a time when it becomes indefensible to maintain numbers. It becomes all or nothing and right now I fear you guys are heading for nothing.
If the need for the ratio is CASA based then the rules need to be changed, if it's EBA based then there needs to be changes there.
All of nothing is still nothing.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's much more productive at a Domestic Terminal to have a high LAME/AME ratio. AMEs are basically useless there. Better to send 1 LAME to fix a defect than 1 AME who then also needs a LAME to be there to supervise and certify them. The operation is cheaper with more LAMEs.