Let me get this straight...
Firstly, we have 65 LAMEs back in the business. An admission that either they couldn't bear the risk of ANOTHER loss in court, or that somebody has badly miscalculated the workload vs LAMEs and the backlog was getting critical; perhaps both.
Secondly, we have the terminals requesting volunteers from SAM for secondments back to the terminals. They got rid of 26 from Domestic and now they're requesting 20 back. Another admission that they got their numbers wrong. The scope for backfilling is limited due to the understandable reluctance of former terminal LAMEs now comfortably ensconced in a 4-on 5-off roster and more sedate pace to volunteer to return to what is now a very hectic place; and due to the lack of appropriate licenses among those long-standing SAM LAMEs who would like to volunteer for a bit of exposure at the terminals.
So in an environment where supposedly, according to the company, we were SO overstaffed to the point that we had to redeploy people and get rid of 65 LAMEs, and yet the company is now calling in people on overtime, AFTER the return of the 65?
As the FedSec says, working EXCESSIVE overtime will ULTIMATELY cost jobs. I agree. But define excessive. And according to EA10 no LAME will be made redundant in a port while LAMEs in that port have leave to burn. The EA is for 4 years, in which time it is my view that the redundancies will be oversubscribed before the 4 years is up. There goes the "surplus" LAMEs and the leave burn.
In the absence of upgrading your fleet, and wholesale change to pay scales, the only way to profit for an airline is to better utilise your assets, whether that be aircraft or people. Utilisation of the A380, B747, A330 and B738 fleets is planned to be increased. Increased aircraft utilisation translates to more maintenance required. If fleet utilisation is increased, the opportunity for maintenance during ground time is decreased. So you have to work your people harder or smarter, or both. In addition, A330s are returning to the red tail fleet, and net B738 numbers have not yet peaked. Further, the 787s arrive during the term of EA10: 2016 - 2017. People will need to be removed from the workforce to be trained on the new type, creating a further crimp in numbers.
More aircraft, more flying, more maintenance, less time to do the maintenance, and a LAME workforce declining in numbers and license coverage. It is my view that in the term of EA10 the overtime will go from a trickle to a flood.
The necessity for overtime delivers a pretty stark message. Somebody, somewhere, has f@cked up: either they haven't trained enough people, or they have gotten rid of too many, or both.
If the O/T is not worked then the maintenance backlog builds up. Eventually the backlog gets to the point where QE can't fulfil the requirements of the MOU and the customer starts asking questions. QE will have no choice but to either recognise some of those external licenses widely held, and/or train people, so that the company can better utilise its people along with its fleet.
If the O/T is worked, and if as I predict the trickle becomes a flood, it starts to butt up against two things: the limitations imposed by the company's own fatigue management policy; and the mounting cost. It will get to a point where it is financially and humanly unsustainable, which justifies training people or recognising licenses already held to better utilise the people you have left.
The boys are back in the business, so there's no longer the moral imperative to not work O/T, and the only things the company understands are dollars and delays. Work the overtime or don't work it. It's your choice. Whatever you choose, you're sending a message that will be heard loud and clear in the months and years to come. But don't criticise your colleagues for working a bit of overtime here and there, so long as it's not "excessive", and it's fairly shared.