holic at al.
I've also tried this approach and come up puzzled by the management thought process.The Qantas group in the past has benefitted greatly by holding on to their skilled workforce using an actual or implied seniority and good T&Cs.They now seem hell bent on destroying both those levers.
Years ago I was at a meeting for LH Tech crew a week after we got a new CEO.It was at a time when experienced B747 drivers were pretty thin on the ground and a well known Asian carrier regularly poached them as they turned 55 and could pull out their super. A bit into his opening,Mr CEO made the statement that went roughly like, anybody who was in a company for more than 5 years was not the kind of person the Company needed. The CP who was sitting next to him went ashen and at the end of the presentation it was explained by Mr CP that the CEO didn't mean pilots to be included in his comments. However he had lost us forever at that stage because he obviously didn't understand the business he was in.
A few years later and I was presenting at the Productivity Commission hearing on Deregulation in Aviation. The subject of LAMEs came up and I ended up with a raging arguement with the same CEO. I was attempting to argue that in our industry experience is everything. My example was of the old procedure where a defect was called into say SYD Engineering by the FE. Engineering would call back with a few quick requests for observations and tests. The aircraft would be met by a LAME and an apprentice assigned to the defect prior to arrival. Between them they had everything needed and the aircraft normally left on time. Under the new system they were met by a much cheaper AME or 3 who knew nothing about the defect and the aircraft left an hour late with the defect as a hold item.Which is the cheaper staff member? According to current wisdom its the low paid AME. It appears with this debacle, this thinking is now flowing on to the Pilot group.
I can see no future for any airline who sees this way of management as valid.
Wunwing