LAME2 you correct of course.They may offer redundancies anytime they wish.
The fact they have not made any VR offers (despite the obvious over staffing in one area I can see) says they either have other plans for those people or are totally inept.
I actually know they acknowledge the over staffing and problematical work practices (they set up and allow) so they must have other plans or simply have given up.
I know a few guys who would walk if given the chance.Good workers very experienced and productive but just had a gut full of the nonsense.
QF also know that having LAMEs at the turnaround does offer an advantage for delay reduction.And we all know the business customer hates delays. The place thrives on delay codes, meetings and the blame game over who'll cop those lost minutes.
If they are serious about delay minimisation they will keep LAMEs on tarmac. There is considerable value in doing so.Value versus costs.
It will be used as a threat but losing LAMEs off the turnaround particularly in the major ports will degrade delay figures markedly.QF cannot afford to give
VB free kicks.Network, frequency, on time performance and frequent flyer are kings in business market.
They need to guard that vigilantly.
If they were sensible they'd grandfather current practices offer 3% and some sweets and commit to have meaningful ongoing discussions with regard to manning levels and duties in the future.
With the right framework I am sure the ALAEA would consider some changes.
Evolution not revolution.But someone must be the bulwark against mediocrity in aircraft maintenance.
I dont speak for the union so it is just an opinion only.