I have bolded my responses to this ridiculous piece of puff work sanctioned by Alan. If you took his statement, laminated it and attached some long dark scraggy hair you truly would have a Wirthless object -
QANTAS has flagged plans to cut maintenance costs by axing its long-standing policy of having a licensed engineer check every passenger jet before take-off.
Excellent news. So just like Jetstar they will use a Ground Handler who has just finished working as a builders labourer, only has 6 months experience in aviation, and he will do the pre departure walk around before pushing back the aircraft with a Power Push Unit ? Yep, worlds best practise and certainly the safest method possible? Little man you have become lost in a world of KPI’s, shareholder statements, profit forecasts and cash flows. Alan, why don’t you or your senior team front as many safety forums as you do shareholder forums and business forums? But of course safety is your number one priority isn’t it? Dry that one out and you could fertilize Mascots gardens for a millennium.
Have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry? I am sure the Senators would appreciate the opportunity to review your robust safety analysis word by word.
And the airline intends to hire lesser-qualified "A-licence'' workers to replace licensed engineers for some hangar work as it moves to cut overheads and bolster its survival prospects.
Bolster its survival prospects by removing experience and skill from the workplace? Idiots. Why not apply the same philosophy to top tier management then? Hire some uni grads with no experience at all to run the place. Same principle isn’t it?
Once again I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry? This should not be too hard to produce, after all, safety is your number one priority, correct?
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce warned yesterday the flag carrier had no choice but to overhaul its maintenance program if it was to live on and grow in the cut-throat market.
The only throats being cut are the throats of experiences QF staff. The throat of the business has been slashed wide open by poor management decisions, poor business modelling, corrupt business practises resulting in fines and jail sentences, to name just a few items. So management can stop bleating about maintenance costs being the primary cause of their ‘alleged’ woes. The primary concern should be management’s inability to actually run a complex aviation business such as QF, simple.
This old chestnut has become boring Alan. Once again I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?
The airline was lumbered with maintenance and repair systems that were "among the least efficient and most expensive in the world'', Mr Joyce said, speaking at an industry conference in Sydney.
Based upon what research, what figures, what evidence? Have other airlines been sharing commercially sensitive facts and figures with QF for some reason and comparing data?
He said new-generation Boeing and Airbus aircraft, which made up 50 per cent of the domestic Qantas fleet, did not require the same degree of ``intensive, repetitive maintenance''.
Is that so? Although the Dugong doesn’t operate domestically VH-OQA is a prime example of a ‘new’ aircraft type and what can go wrong. Do you really believe that in the interest of safety that it would be of safety benefit to have no available skilled engineers employed to undertake the incredibly complex process of repairing and returning this ship to service?
"This therefore makes redundant the current practice that a highly specialised licensed engineer should receive and dispatch each aircraft,'' Mr Joyce said.
Another misguided theory little fella based upon excel spread sheet analysis.
Pilots would still carefully check all aircraft before and after every flight, he said, and licensed engineers would continue to inspect older aircraft.
What is your method of determining what constitutes an older aircraft? 1, 10, 20 years old? Based on what exactly? Based upon risk assessments, manufacturer specifications? Or based upon an empty theory plucked out of the air designed to impress the analysts and appease the public? Provide some evidence to back up this statement, little man. Once more and most importantly have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?
Mr Joyce said it was essential Qantas became more competitive with rival airlines, which enjoyed costs up to 25 per cent lower.
So the same shoe fits all does it? After all these years you are saying that Qantas so called method of operation, up to 25% higher than its competitors is something that the shareholder should not be concerned about? Sounds like years and years of poor management is behind such a huge disparity? Would not management be accountable, at all levels, for such a poor performance? What, no overhaul of the top tier of management, yet an overhaul is required for other departments?
I don’t think the travelling public would agree that Engineering requires cutbacks. After all, due to such previous poor decisions Qantas lost it’s absolutely impeccable safety standing within Australia and the wider aviation community, to the point that it has become a laughing matter at home and abroad.
Can Alan prove that other carriers operating costs (allegedly 25% lower) is solely based on their having outsourced maintenance or their hiring of cheaper pilot labor? I would love to review the documentation and evidence please.
Work practices and job protection go to the core of the airline's industrial dispute with licensed engineers, who have staged one-minute strikes and, in some cases, handled tools using only their left hands.
Any actual laws broken little fella?
Anyway, management, many of who are ‘tools’ themselves, have handle the business with both hands stuck inside the ‘bonus tin’ for a long time.
Mr Joyce said the proposed changes were in line with new standards approved by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, which reflected European standards and global best-practice.
Interesting. Can we please take a look at the assessments that Qantas has made against those exact European and CASA and global best-practice standards that you mention? We would love to examine in depth the obvious analysis that QF has undertaken to come to this conclusion. Agasin
I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?
The standards clear the way for the use of workers with an A-licence, who are qualified to work on aircraft but do not require the same level of training and specialisation as licensed engineers.
"This means we can retain our licensed engineers in their specialised roles and provide new opportunities for other maintenance staff,'' Mr Joyce said.
This is a smoke, mirrors and fertiliser statement.
He said some union leaders were "simply out of touch''.
Wow. So you are saying that Union Leaders who actually ENGAGE with the workforce, and have worked in roles that have provided them with actual and factual knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the business, are out of touch??? I would rather assert that accountant type management whose only concern is their next bonus payment and whose main role is sitting in an air-conditioned office with leather high back chairs sipping on Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Joet and nibbling at Italian white Alba truffles would have better insight? Hmmm
"We don't repair our cars the same way we did 40 years ago - we can't repair our planes the same way either,'' Mr Joyce said.
Well there you have it, the motherhood of all statements, the ‘piece de resistance’! This guy compares cars and car technology to the highly specialised, intricate and complex machinery called an aircraft? I guess it is good news for the apprentices at Holden, easy transition from fixing a Barina to maintaining A380 avionics as an example.
Folks, your lives are in the hands of this type of inept management. If you weren’t frightened before, you should be now.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association condemned the maintenance proposals.
Secretary Steve Purvinas said the push would see engineers with decades of experience made redundant and replaced with workers with as little as three months' training.
He said the association had agreed with Virgin Australia's move to use A-licence holders, but only for 10 per cent of maintenance staff and for those who would attain full engineering licences within two years.