Future of AAES [Archive]

Romulus

27th Mar 2007, 11:01

Romulus, firstly, I sincerely hope that it does get up & there's plenty of jobs for all however, there is one thing I cannot fathom.

Here you are in a Maint. Base with limited work. The company, AAES, is being funded by the Administrators to keep it as a going concern (just like AN2), is that correct? What I don't understand is why there was talk of the deal being blocked by the Unions over AWA's. Especially when there isn't exactly a huge demand for a Mant. operation that has no parent airline feeding it. There aren't a lot of prospective buyers out there.

Now, I'll qualify that before you answer. I'd be looking at any way out of signing an AWA too. I'm not saying that you blokes should take it & be greatful, but you've had ongoing work for a number of years now and, again, I was involved in AN2 so I also was employed & paid courtesy of the company assets/staff redundancy. I assume then that the Unions have brokered a deal for it to still be going forward, but why wouldn't you guys jump at the chance of a secure future? Why put up potential barriers to the deal?

Again, I'm not having a go, because I don't have all the details, but I'd appreciate if you could enlighten me!:ok:

I'd best clarify, I work for John Holland. Most of the guys at AAES who read to forum have guessed who I am (it's no great secret).

To go through some points:

1. I don't think the Unions would have blocked the sale, they just wanted us to use a collective agreement not AWAs. In the end they offered us the flexibility and other benefits associated with AWAs (plus some other stuff) in a collective form so we're happy to go with that providing they deliver. Equally if the Unions don't deliver we have about 75% of the AWAs returned signed so the team here are well aware of the situation.

Note that AWAs and salaries do not reduce benefits. What we did to determine salary levels was to figure out what people would earn under the EBA, wrap it up into a package(which as a benefit means that the 9% super guarantee is paid across all earnings not just the base), we throw in essentially unlimited sick leave (in case you have a heart attack and need support until you're 65), we roll all shift loadings, penalty loadings etc into it and away we go.

The incentive is then to get the job done as efficiently as possible because under a salary system no overtime, beyond that included in the salary, is payable. So if you get 10 hour swork done in 8 then you go home and get paid for it all. And there's the difference - previously hourly paid guys live off their overtime. So the incentive is to manufacture overtime. This way we place the incentive in finishing the job efficeintly and reaping the benefits (and quality is't compromised because everyone is aware that any defects need to be fixed by the salaried staff which means fixing defects means they work longer than they need to). In some ways it's a brave new world, equally it's a system we've used elsewhere and it works. It takes trust and effort from both sides but we prefer to treat people like managers rather than taking the "I'll wipe your arse and blow your nose" kind of management control methodology. Interestingly Coke fought to get it in at some of their plants 10 years ago. They are now trying to get people back onto the clock because they have failed to grasp the management benefits of a salaried workforce. And the salaried employees are, rightfully, demanding that Coke pay them a squillion to lose the benefits.

2. No demand? Well, if that's the case then I'm in for a flogging from the board for asking them to commit bucks to buy this place. We think it can work, it will be tough but given the gowth in the industry and some other factors we believe we can do it.

3. The blokes haven't put up blockers, the Unions came out after 5 years and, to their credit, they put a huge amount of flexibility on the table. Stuff that no other collective agreement does. On that basis we're happy to proceed provided the Unions deliver their end. And given Sharan Burrows herself came down to lead the negotiations it shows how seriously they took it. They may be opposed to AWAs for ideological reasons but they took the AWA and turned it into a collective agreement, assuming they deliver then we have no reason to go back on it. If they can't deliver we'll go with our original AWA strategy.

So all in all we're looking at a tough but potentially long term future. No guarantees of course but we think we can make it work. As an MRO we'll have to be more flexible than an airline, we can't build a dedicated 737 heavy line for instance, we'll be working 737s one week/month, A320s the next, then 727s etc. That's our challenge. We'll have broad qualifications, we'll pay for plenty of training because we need that capability.

And then we'll go out and win work becase we'll turn it around quicker whilst doing a proper job so the airlines can get their assets earning bucks for them. If I can basically provide an 8 week check in 7 weeks (and give the guys week 8 off as extra leave) then that will save the airline the enitre cost of the check in extra earnings, I get the same revenue and the guys get a week off on full pay as a bonus.

Why wouldn't I incentivise the guys to be efficient? It's a whole new way of thinking but I intend to win all the work QF currently send overseas. And as VB and J* fleets age I will win chunks of that work as well.

Just a few thoughts.

Buster Hyman

27th Mar 2007, 14:06

Thanks for the reply Romulus. I'll have to re-read it in the morning because you raise some points that have created more questions in my mind (ie 8 week job in 7, week off fully paid, aircraft out early but at full cost?).:ok:

Any AAES guys out there? What's your opinion? (just curious...):confused:

rudderless1

27th Mar 2007, 22:26

What happens when that 8 week job being done in 7 weeks than is expected to be done in 7 weeks. Suddenly you are flogging yourself just to make par again. I.e what is the benchmark for time taken to assess whether or not your workforce is efficient. How accountable will management be for poor tooling, systems, planning, training and support etc. This all plays a big factor in how efficiently a task can be completed. Take a look at QF and those mongrels get big bonus's for WHAT!
The QF Tulla guys currently produce their checks in excellent times 21 day "c" as compared to industry 40 + yet they want to screw the some more and reduce training.
How will John Holland be any different given their history and the fact QF hold a position on the board. They a playing one group against another. There is plenty of performance in the Qf hangar and plenty of space, just needs to piss useless mgt off.
If its not about greed (particularly bonus's sapped at other peoples expense alah QF), and reward (and pain) is shared it could be great.
One day we will actually see an Australian manager take reponsibility for their decisions:hmm:

Syd eng

27th Mar 2007, 23:28

Is a little scary for a company that is in direct competition with another to have the CEO of one of them on the boards of both. Is this a conflict of interest. Could he be using one to kill off another?

YesTAM

28th Mar 2007, 01:01

Buster Hyman

28th Mar 2007, 03:08

Romulus, again, thanks for the details. I just have a few points which you may, or may not be inclined to respond to...no dramas either way.:ok:

1. As alluded to by another poster, what's to stop the 10 hour job being planned as 8 hours in the future, if the job is done regularly in this time?

2. From what I recall, I think QF had a sniff around, but that fell through. Demand is relative & whilst I'm sure there's demand for Maintenance, I'd say its in cheaper places than MEL. All the more reason for an operation with cheaper overheads, especially when competing with Asia.

3. Fair enough. With 75% committed, I'd say the majority are content with your offer. Can't argue against a win-win scenario...I hope it works out.

Re my previous. I now see you are still charging for the 8 week job that was done in 7 (hypothetical) and the airline benefits from having revenue coming in a week early but, not all airlines would be able to benefit from having a scheduled aircraft "outage" coming back early. Not saying it can't be done but, they'd also start to question your estimates on future jobs wouldn't they? Again, just playing Devil's advocate & getting splinters up here on the fence...

Romulus

28th Mar 2007, 10:08

With the greatest of respect, I'd like to see AAES prosper, but as Rudderless ans Sydney Engineer have just demonstrated in their posts is that there appears to be a serious trust deficit at the moment. It also appears that, to some people, GD is toxic.

Perhaps Rommo can point to JH sites where the proposed system is working and maybe arrange a few chats.

OK, it's just a suggestion.

Eastlink is probably the best one at the moment. I can't set up meetings (some would accuse me of using company patsies anyway) but there are plenty of people who have worked on it so ask around and someone will know someone.

Is there a serious trust issue? I think so. Given the history of the aviation industry that's to be expected. We're leading with salaries and guranteeing jobs, giving peopl eaccess to lifetime illness benefits etc etc etc, we think the guys will come along with us.

And to answer the question about fast turnarounds becoming the norm the answer is I hope so. Part of our strategy is to discuss each major job with the workforce first to get a reasonable grip on what the guys can deliver. Then we work together to figure out how to beat that time and away we go, I'm happy to record the agreement on each major check and post it in the relevant dock for all to see. Give me excellence in customer service and I'll happily pay up.

Romulus

28th Mar 2007, 10:22

Romulus, again, thanks for the details. I just have a few points which you may, or may not be inclined to respond to...no dramas either way.:ok:

As the guys will tell you, I'd talk underwater with a mouth full of marbles...

:)

1. As alluded to by another poster, what's to stop the 10 hour job being planned as 8 hours in the future, if the job is done regularly in this time?

It's all about incentive. I stop putting the incentive there and suddenly there's no reason to get it done. I lose all the benefits I am offering my customers and then ultimatley lose the customer themselves. HArdly a good business model.

Not to say we don't expect people to work reasonably hard anyway, from what the guys have taught me most checks have a recommended timeframe. That is what we're looking to beat. I don't care how we (legitimately) do it - thorough workpack planning, process flowing, whatever, I do't care as long as any customer knows we are number 1 in service terms.

2. From what I recall, I think QF had a sniff around, but that fell through. Demand is relative & whilst I'm sure there's demand for Maintenance, I'd say its in cheaper places than MEL. All the more reason for an operation with cheaper overheads, especially when competing with Asia.

No argument on the cheaper options, that's why we need the flexibility and efficiencies to sell our customer on total cost of the works. Not every custoemr wants the same thing, if they are ultimately headline price conscious then they'll head overseas. I can't stop that. But I can try and build a value equation that keeps the work here. To do that I need the guys on board, everyone here has their own future in their own hands.

3. Fair enough. With 75% committed, I'd say the majority are content with your offer. Can't argue against a win-win scenario...I hope it works out.

Even had a few QF guys approach me at the airshow so it can't be too bad....

Re my previous. I now see you are still charging for the 8 week job that was done in 7 (hypothetical) and the airline benefits from having revenue coming in a week early but, not all airlines would be able to benefit from having a scheduled aircraft "outage" coming back early.

Agreed, there is no one size fits all solution, we need to tailor each offer to each customer. Hard but doable. Others may want phased checks to keep their planes flying during the day for instance. Hard to do that if you're flying out of the country for maintenance works. Others may settle for longer ground durations for a lower cost so we do work for them only when we have excess capacity.

But ultimately if we are going to succeed as an MRO we need the reputation for customer excellence and flexibility. The guys here are doing 90% of that already in ways that the old Ansett never would have. If they stop then we go under. If they keep up efficient work practices then we should continue. Pretty simple equation when your future is in your own hands.

Not saying it can't be done but, they'd also start to question your estimates on future jobs wouldn't they? Again, just playing Devil's advocate & getting splinters up here on the fence...

Yep. It's a whole new way of contracting. Headline labour rates and headline hours take a back seat to finishing the job. Who really cares about hours and hourly rates, what they really care about is making $$$. So if I can tailor the offer to ensure they do that then we stand a fighting chance.

Buster Hyman

28th Mar 2007, 11:27

Well, thanks Romulus. As we speak I see the deal is being drawn up & it looks a goer.:ok:

Funny you should mention Eastlink (http://www.awu.net.au/national/news/1112166579_19847.html), I've been involved with that too, but not from TJH's perspective...the "other" side!

727ace

29th Mar 2007, 02:02

Where can one apply for a position within this organisation ?:D

Buster Hyman

29th Mar 2007, 02:40

Took me a while, but this (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21811,21343388-662,00.html) was the article I read that brought about my questions.

rmm

29th Mar 2007, 03:11

I intend to win all the work QF currently send overseas.

Can we assume from this statement that you are chasing 743, 744 & A330 work?

IIRC these are the only types that have and are still being offshored.
(A330 on a regular basis & 747's ad hoc)

To get this work, especially the 747's would require a substantial outlay.
Just a few things that come to mind - Hangar modifications, docking system, tooling and quite a large work force for C & D checks.

Rmm

Romulus

29th Mar 2007, 08:12

PM me with your details and we can have a brief chat, update the resume and away we go.

Romulus

29th Mar 2007, 08:21

Took me a while, but this (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21811,21343388-662,00.html) was the article I read that brought about my questions

Pretty fair in most cases.

Of course what they forget to point out (as with all AWA arguments teh mdia runs) is that the reason all those penalty type payments are excluded is that they get rolled up into the base salary.

Just to be clear, they still get paid. If, based on historical work patterns, I expect you to be on night shift then I build that into your salary. If, again based on your individual history, it is likely you will work 10 hours a week overtime then I pay that as well. Same for all those other conditions. What we don't do is build them in to your salary and then pay them again when you work them. That's the bit that the uninformed jouro's always seem to miss and given the scare campaign around AWAs people think that legally they can have their conditions stripped for no return elsewhere. Which is illegal (refer to the teenager who got her OT rates cut at that Juice outlet - they got fined $25K or somesuch for trying to offer below award conditions, not that it got reported in the headlines as much as the original ripoff did) and rightly so. But if most peopl eaccept that to be the case becasue they believe a scare campaign then in effect all the scare campaign is doing is to help the bad employers rip off their workers who think they don't have a choice (if you think you're being ripped off under an AWA call the Office of the Employment Advocate, they exist for this very reason).

Funny how things work. The new collective agreement proposed by the Union movement does exactly the same.

Romulus

29th Mar 2007, 08:50

Can we assume from this statement that you are chasing 743, 744 & A330 work?

IIRC these are the only types that have and are still being offshored.
(A330 on a regular basis & 747's ad hoc)

Yes.

Plus others.

Our mentality is that of engineering contractors, we need to be able to service as many aircraft types as we can. Not just QANTAS types but everything from 727's, 737-200 upward to NGs, 747, 757 (couple of companies are talking about bringing them in for mine fly in fly out ops), 767s, 777 (Singapore, Emirates), 787, A319/20/30/40 all the way up to A380s (yes really).

And ideally I want as many LAMEs trained as broadly across all aircraft types as possible. We won't have the luxury the airlines have of training you guys on 737s and then letting them work a 737 heavy line for 20 years straight, an MRO doesn't work that way. We'll need flexible guys with multiple licences who can move between aircraft types at will as we win the work.

That's our biggest challenge.

To get this work, especially the 747's would require a substantial outlay.
Just a few things that come to mind - Hangar modifications, docking system, tooling and quite a large work force for C & D checks.

Rmm

Hangar mods: well, we are also Australia's biggest construction contractors

Docking mods: ditto

Tooling: Leighton (aircraft services manager) has purchase orders ready to go to ensure we have every set of jacks needed to service any type (i.e. the whole Boeing and Airbus ranges) of large commercial aircraft. Malabar are awaiting confirmation which will occur as soon as we agree the sale contract and get it signed.

We can't afford to wait around for the basics like jacks and other tools, we want them on site, in service/calibration and in their designated location. So we simply order as many jacks as we need. Leighton has done his homework and told us what he needs, the bucks are not insignificant but equally the jacks are needed. Simple answer: we provide the cash and Leighton does the work. Now all I need to do is win the work.

Engineering is what we do.

We're not an airline, we will operate no aircraft (although we have cut a deal on the DC-3) we will simply throw our engineering knowledge into an industry that we think has room for a specialist engineering contractor.

And that is the best guidance we give to people who want to come and work for us (we've had more than a few). We work when the work is there to be done, everyone pitches in (I spent today playing secretary and phoning up to find some contract 73NG LAMEs for Leighton as he was snowed under - if anyone wants a minimum months contract on NGs PM me). Equally if the cleaning crews need a hand I'll pitch in.

Simple as that, that's our key criteria. No prima donnas, no wankers. We'll happily train a bloke who has the right attitude but lacks skills so that he becomes a highly skilled type in preference to putting up with a guy who has great quals but has a ******** attitude.

As I told one of the guys when I found him rolling a ciggie airside and he told me he wasn't going to smoke it there, don't bull**** me and we'll get along fine. Play games and you're out, too many people need this place to earn a decent living where their skills are appreciated for me to tolerate dickheads. And there the salary situation helps as well. It's pretty easy to fool a manager into thinking you're flat out but if some bloke is bludging off his mates they'll soon let him know and tell him to lift his game as his bludging means they have to work longer. Like I said before, it's a very different world we're trying to build. Responsibility and accountability for everyone, with the rewards attached to good performance.

Soapbox mode off.

jet_mechanic

30th Mar 2007, 07:33

I have heard alot of rumors and stories about the new AAES and John Holland. When will all this become a reality. What job opportunities will there be with in the company. Is there going to be a recrutement process going on?

I think it is great to see a company go in head first into the deep end and open up a true MRO facility. This is what the oz industry needs, some serious competition between the Red Rat.

And also to Romulus, you mention that there will be trainning offered to those who show interest. I would like to see the company provide this to the young up-coming guys who are keen to work and give them the opportunity to become multi-licensed/multi-skilled like you said. A flexible work force.:ok:

cheers....

Romulus

30th Mar 2007, 12:46

I have heard alot of rumors and stories about the new AAES and John Holland. When will all this become a reality. What job opportunities will there be with in the company. Is there going to be a recrutement process going on?

We have to finish negotiations which should be resolved one way or the other before Easter (next week). Equally I'm signing off on positions for 737-200 (not that there's many left) LAME's and I need some 737NG guys for a shortish contract in the immediate future...

As a listed company we are bound to notify the Stock Exchange first, once it becomes public knowledge I'll confirm it here as soon as I can. One of our principles is openness (as far as we are legally or commercially allowed), I reckon if I can use this forum to keep people informed all will be good.

I think it is great to see a company go in head first into the deep end and open up a true MRO facility. This is what the oz industry needs, some serious competition between the Red Rat.

They have a different set of criteria. We're engineers, they're an airline. Makes a fundamental difference to how one views the type of work done.

Currently there's a QF 73 in the hangar getting ready to go to Avalon. Feedback from the QF guys is they're happy with the time taken for the work to be done, they're happy with the quality and they're happy it's in Australia.

Credit to all the AAES guys for keeping the place going for so long in administration. Next challenge is to grow once that restriction has been removed.

And also to Romulus, you mention that there will be trainning offered to those who show interest. I would like to see the company provide this to the young up-coming guys

We have included in our budget for a 25 per year apprentice intake in the not too distant future (got to build up from 2 or so in year 1).

jet_mechanic

31st Mar 2007, 07:17

Yes i understand that you have VH-XMB in your hangar atmo (the 4th freighter:oh:). Im also lead to believe that you were given 4weeks to complete the "C Check", when the guys next door do a "C Check" in half that time (12days). Whats interesting is why there are LAME's from "next door" working at AAES, on an jet that is bound for AVV.

This is not me having a bash a AAES, just want to find out the story behind it?

Also Romulus, what is your role within AAES/JH?? Do you have room for a highly motivated B737 LAME ;)

Romulus

1st Apr 2007, 06:23

Yes i understand that you have VH-XMB in your hangar atmo (the 4th freighter:oh:). Im also lead to believe that you were given 4weeks to complete the "C Check", when the guys next door do a "C Check" in half that time (12days).

Yep. As I understand it QF didn't expect to have the slot at Avalon available for the 4 week period (and given teh subsequent work package that seems logical) so they were asked to have it ready by March 22 or so. Thus they ran a lower burn rate (see what they're teaching me?!) and got it done with a week to spare as that was the most cost effective way to meet the client's needs. Whilst I'd like to turn every check around in record time, as has been discussed elsewhere that isn't always what teh client needs/wants.

Whats interesting is why there are LAME's from "next door" working at AAES, on an jet that is bound for AVV.

Other than some supervisory/certifying type activities to ensure quality is maintained (and by all accounts the AAES guys have done a great job) I'm not aware of any QF guys actually undertaking work on the plane. Could be wrong but I don't think so.

This is not me having a bash a AAES, just want to find out the story behind it?

Within reason I'll answer any and all Q's, hopefully this has covered yours. If not let me know and I'll try again.

Also Romulus, what is your role within AAES/JH??

Due diligence and if (note it's still not a done deal, I'll let you know as soon as I can post ASX notification once the deal is signed) we proced with the acquisition I'll be the transition manager as we integrate AAES into the JH group of companies.

Do you have room for a highly motivated B737 LAME ;)

Yes. PM me if you're serious..

jet_mechanic

22nd Apr 2007, 07:44

So has the John Holland takeover been completed yet??

What's the latest down there guys??

The Mr Fixit

22nd Apr 2007, 10:29

Romulus

If it is all smooth sailing at JHAS how come there is still an outstanding matter before the federal court ? (according to the fed court website)

If 75% have signed AWAs why would you back down when Sharan showed her face at the Ansett site and accept an EBA ?

JH has a big rep in the building industry but not aviation why the big step into an unknown world ?

A correction to an earlier post Peter Gregg sits on the Leighton board GD removed himself when he went to PBL (QF Board Policy)

By the way appreciate the honesty of your previous posts if you are indeed a JH employee but hard to qualify on an anonymous forum

Romulus

23rd Apr 2007, 00:56

So has the John Holland takeover been completed yet??

What's the latest down there guys??

The on site staff have the latest (to be frank they're probably sick of the number of communication meetings that we hold) , there's a couple of thngs I need to finish off (Lease from APAM, Customer contract novation) and we're there. That's about the most I can say at the moment, not that there's anything surprising that remains, it's just a matter of getting the mechanics of the transaction in place.

As soon as I possibly can I'll give an official notification of completion of the contract.

Romulus

23rd Apr 2007, 03:37

If it is all smooth sailing at JHAS how come there is still an outstanding matter before the federal court ? (according to the fed court website)

As at the date of your post you are correct, equally for obvious reasons that's an area I can't comment on. It's an interesting area and one I suggest people follow via their own sources.

If 75% have signed AWAs why would you back down when Sharan showed her face at the Ansett site and accept an EBA ?

The use of the phrase "back down" is interesting and says much about the aviation industry. From our perspective we want the relationship with our staff to be a positive one, in that we certainly seem to be breaking new ground in this industry. If you see this as a "back down" then that encapsulates too much of the unfortunate adversarial relations that dog this industry.

In keeping with my "no bull****" philosophy the answer as to why we agreed to a Collective Agreement was pretty simple - we got made an offer we couldn't refuse. What we want is flexibility and the ability to compete with ANZES and the like head on. I'm happy to let the Unions/ALP and the Govt wrestle over AWAs or not, all I want is a system that rewards our people whilst achieving what the business needs.

To be very clear on this point, Sharan led the ACTU/Union team very well to deliver an outcome that meets our needs whilst retaining a Collective Agreement that the ACTU/Union team wanted. Given I have the flexibility and the conditions I want why would I unnecessarily pick a fight that will do nothing more than distract me from the task of building this business?

With either structure (AWA or Collective) we could do that, we're not into ideological battles, we're into making $$ in a sustainable manner. As far as we're concerned in this industry that means the following

1: Commitment to quality - my favourite piece of Ansett memorabilia that sits in the boardroom here is an old A4 sized poster that simply states words to the effect of "Aviation is not inherently dangerous but, like the sea, it is unforgiving of carelessness and ignorance". Not the exact words but pretty close.

And that says it all - do this properly and it is exceptionally safe, cut corners and you end up with the Indonesian situation. We are engineers, we do not cut corners when it comes to matters of safety or doing the job right.

As an independent MRO our business depends on our reputation. Simple as that. We can cut corners once or twice to try and get away with something but that would kill the business in short order so it simply won't happen.

2: Commitment to staff - I want a well trained workforce that wants to be here. I can walk around and with about a 95% certainty I know everyone by name. Hopefully by now everyone feels confident enough to ask me any question knowing that I'll either give a straight answer or I'll say I cannot answer for either commercial/legal reasons or because I don't know (which are straight answers in themselves even if they don't provide information that addresses the question specifically).

Seems to be working, I have a pile of resumes to work through as we ramp up the business.

This is where we differ significantly from QF, VB, J* etc. For them a guy with a single licence is all they really need as they stick him/her on a line dedicated to that type and there they stay for the next 20 years. As an MRO we don't have the luxury of nose to tailing a single type, we will have a 737 Classic followed by an A320 or an NG or a 727 or whatever. That's where flexibility comes in, I'm fully prepared to fund training on types of aircraft that we see an opportunity for. Classic example - 777s. Not too many in Australia so if we ramp up for that then we can offer VB, Emirates, Singapore and anyone else who takes the 777 on in Australia a service where we are cost sompetitive because we are aggregating work across a number of operators which gives us economies of scale each independent operator cannot achieve alone. And because we're independent there is no question that operator aircraft will take precedence over third party aircraft in an AOG situation. And that's another reason why we're different to an airline - whatever we do at JHAS isn't that relevant to how QF or VB do things as they have a very different set of base conditions to work from. I'd love to have a potential fleet of 100+ Dreamliners as a base laod but that simply isn't going to happen. So we have to be smart enough to aggregate a lot of little bits to make a viable business.

JH has a big rep in the building industry but not aviation why the big step into an unknown world ?

We're actually engineers and contractors and that's what we see here - an opportunity for high end engineering skills in a contract environment. With some of our skills from construction we think we can make a difference to how the work is done, we think we can run an efficient organisation, and most of all because we're engineers and we understand engineering we believe we can work with our staff as the lifeblood of our company as opposed to airlines who have a reputation for seeing engineering as a cost only. All of which means we think we can do it well enough to prevent any more work being sent offshore, that's our target market.

Again, to meet the "no bull****" policy, we're pretty demanding employers, be under no misapprehension about that. I'm more interested in people who bring me solutions to problems as opposed to simply saying "can't be done". We've all heard the horror stories about how his industry has worked in the past and to their credit the guys at AAES have thrown that attitude out by their own choice as they did what they had to do to keep the business going. The quickest way to shut this place down is to go back to the old way of doing things.

In order to make it in the contracting game that's a prety clear definition of what we have to provide our customers - flexibility and a commitment to making it happen. Same goes for our expectations of employees. That's what we deliver and that's what we expect. And it cuts both ways, "management" can't expect employees to deliver if they aren't doing so themselves.

A correction to an earlier post Peter Gregg sits on the Leighton board GD removed himself when he went to PBL (QF Board Policy)

Correct

By the way appreciate the honesty of your previous posts if you are indeed a JH employee but hard to qualify on an anonymous forum

:)

Enough guys here have picked me to know who I am.....

Jetpirate

11th May 2007, 03:52

Well Romulus, Its almost show time. That is the latest news from JHAS?
Will you have significant operations in BNE, SYD and PER to compliment MEL Heavy?
If, so whats your time frame?
What is your training schedule going to be like? Given that you will have to have many licenced LAME's in order to attract work from airlines flying differnt types. Not to mention satisfy CASA that you are able to maintain those types.
:hmm:

Romulus

12th May 2007, 09:59

Well Romulus, Its almost show time. That is the latest news from JHAS?

Indeed it is. Final, final things are being crossed off the list (mainly novating customers across from AAES to JHAS) and it's there.

Will you have significant operations in BNE, SYD and PER to compliment MEL Heavy?

Well here I have to be careful. I would LIKE to have significant operations in all ports, equally there isn't that much sense in doing something for the sake of it. We need to bed down the AAES acquisition and go from there. If there's an opportunity you see for a company that's prepared to invest please speak up, otherwise we'll be occupied at Tulla for a while I suspect.

If, so whats your time frame?

Given I have most of our strategy inside my head that would be going too far. Sorry, but commercial confidence needs to apply to that.

What is your training schedule going to be like?

Busy. In the past week we've paid for over 40 courses in EASA 145, 66 etc. We need to satisfy the regulators we have all the basics in place. And we have a plan for our first 320 training as well.

Given that you will have to have many licenced LAME's in order to attract work from airlines flying differnt types. Not to mention satisfy CASA that you are able to maintain those types.

Yep. Tools, facilities, data, training/licences. Need to tick all the boxes.

Buster Hyman

12th May 2007, 10:14

:ok: I've ticked a box before....better update my CV!!!

rmm

12th May 2007, 10:16

Romulus,

The following was posted on another forum. Can you confirm/deny/elaborate?

Rumour has it John Holland Services is putting a proposal to Qantas to take over the labour contracts at Avalon and all staff will be made redundant and re-employed on AWAs. Is this true?

Apophis

12th May 2007, 11:04

screw the staff over more than likely some are very close to being due long service leave we can,t have that and forshaft are hopeless managers.:eek:

Redstone

12th May 2007, 15:30

Pardon my ignorance, but what work was there for the 100 employees of AAES since the Ansett collpse at this facility? What contracts did John Holland get with the purchase?

Romulus

13th May 2007, 01:44

Romulus,

The following was posted on another forum. Can you confirm/deny/elaborate?

Quote:
Rumour has it John Holland Services is putting a proposal to Qantas to take over the labour contracts at Avalon and all staff will be made redundant and re-employed on AWAs. Is this true?

I can state, with 100% certainty, that this rumour is incorrect.

If you can let me know which other forum I'll go there and deny it as well.

Romulus

13th May 2007, 01:47

Pardon my ignorance, but what work was there for the 100 employees of AAES since the Ansett collpse at this facility? What contracts did John Holland get with the purchase?

Until they're officially novated across I'll have to go with commercial confidence on that one.

domo

13th May 2007, 01:57

thanks for your promt replies Romulus i wish qantas managers could communicate as well as you

i did here qantas has copies of your awa and are trying to use them to drive down our conditions.but that is not your fault.

rmm

13th May 2007, 02:07

Have a look here Romulus - http://www.alaea.asn.au/forums/
Look under the Avalon topic

Redstone

13th May 2007, 07:13

Romulus, I will rephrase the question:

What have the AAES employees been doing since Ansett bit the dust?

Were they turning up to work each day to sit around and look at each other?

Or did they have work to do and if so on what for whoom?

By the way Domo, it was illegal for Qantas management to produce that document when they did, seems they got to see it before the comission ratified it. JHAS has a leak, or JHAS and Qantas have some synergies.....

Romulus

13th May 2007, 08:44

thanks for your promt replies Romulus i wish qantas managers could communicate as well as you

We try. Sooner or later people get bored with what we're trying to do with all our comms meetings and they tell us we communicate too much. At that point everything becomes voluntary and if people want to turn up so be it, if they don't then so be that.

i did here qantas has copies of your awa and are trying to use them to drive down our conditions.but that is not your fault.

That would be amusing. And it would also be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to do. We're going to be an engineering organisation not an airline and we believe we'll be totally different to QF.

Get them to PM me and we'll talk about what they should do....

:)

Good luck to them in trying to use our strategy, given the number of LAMEs who are applying who currently work for QF we must have something going in our favour. And to be fair that cuts both ways, as one of the guys has said we're there to get on with the job and not worry about the bullsh*t which is what he wants. Equally we'll be working plenty of diffferent types and that's what some others want. Only thing I can't offer is a steady supply of type X to completely fill a heavy line that you'll work on day in day out for the next 20 years. We need flexibility, we need guys who'll leap in and do what's needed. i.e. no BS. And in return we need to offer a good package of benefits inc salaries. From the response to date and the info on this forum we seem to be in the ballpark.

I guess time will tell but to date we're very happy with the general response.

Romulus

13th May 2007, 08:49

Have a look here Romulus - http://www.alaea.asn.au/forums/
Look under the Avalon topic

Undoubtedly this one will keep me busy...

thanks

R

Romulus

13th May 2007, 08:54

What have the AAES employees been doing since Ansett bit the dust?

Work on Ansett, OzJet, Jetstar, Air Nauru, Solomons and a few others.

Were they turning up to work each day to sit around and look at each other?

Well there are many smart guys in the company but it's going a bit far to suggest there are any lookers......

:)

Or did they have work to do and if so on what for whoom?

See above

By the way Domo, it was illegal for Qantas management to produce that document when they did, seems they got to see it before the comission ratified it. JHAS has a leak, or JHAS and Qantas have some synergies.....

So many copies of both our AWA and CBA were printed it wasn't funny.

For the record there are no formal relations between JHAS and QF (exception being Peter Gregg on the Leighton's board but he has not yet been to site nor has he been given any special briefings). Yes we want to win QANTAS work, most logically that will be overflow work that currently goes overseas.

R

Redstone

13th May 2007, 09:34

Thankyou for your response Romulus.

Does JHAS have a website?

Romulus

13th May 2007, 10:01

Thankyou for your response Romulus.

Does JHAS have a website?

No problems.

No website as yet, it's under development (pretty much done) and is likely to be launched the day we complete the contract.

We have registered www.jhas.com.au (http://www.jhas.com.au)

Parent company website is http://www.johnholland.com.au/ for a broader overview. JHAS will be part of the Services division, in fact it will be the first major business of that division so it will get a lot of attention.

If anyone saw Wal King (CEO of Leighton Holdings) on Sky Business NEws he raved about the potential for the business, there is a lot of interest at a corporate level in this one, so it would be "career limiting" to say the least if it doesn't work....

:)

No SAR No Details

13th May 2007, 12:38

According to the latest Qantas information to staff, John Holland have been handed a much more flexible and cost efficient (cheaper) deal than QF.
What that boils down to is that working conditions and pay at qantas (and therefore forstaff ) are superior.So if this is the case why isnt there a rush to go and get a job with forstaff?

NAS1801

13th May 2007, 12:55

No SAR..... spin spin spin on Qantas managements behalf. Who give a fu#ck anymore. Fed up with all the BS. JHAS offer a mediocre agreement that on the face of it, looks good. If your incentive is purely financial, do the sums before jumping ship. If your incentive is a workplace free of all the BS, lies, trick and brick walls, jump at the chance to join JHAS (assuming that Romulus is genuine in his postings)

Romulus

14th May 2007, 01:30

According to the latest Qantas information to staff, John Holland have been handed a much more flexible

On that we agree

and cost efficient (cheaper) deal than QF.

On this we need to be very clear - cheaper does not mean lower labour rates. Cheaper means we can deliver the services required when and where they are required with a minimum of fuss. Everyone (inc management staff) is expected to pitch in when required. At AAES this is currently the practice, the guys here have done what is needed to keep the place running under administration. Stop doing that and JHAS will be dead quicker than you can say "restrictive work practices. Simple as that.

The guys at AAES have done an excellent job in meetin customer expectations, we want to build on that.

What that boils down to is that working conditions and pay at qantas (and therefore forstaff ) are superior.So if this is the case why isnt there a rush to go and get a job with forstaff?

Except of course that they aren't (to the best of our knowledge). What we have asked for, and been given, is a structure that cuts the cr*p and gets the work done. Everyone here knows how they have survived, everyone here knows what is needed to continue to survive. And funnily enough, labour rates are a SMALL factor in that.

Far more important is the flexibility to do what is needed and the attitude that we can do it rather than waiting for someone else.

Romulus

14th May 2007, 01:38

JHAS offer a mediocre agreement that on the face of it, looks good.

What a wonderful contribution - care to say WHY the agreement is mediocre? Or is that just a populist, convenient mantra to state? Happy to listen to opinions, but at least give us something to work with. If you can't do that then I basically have to relegate your statement to the BS file and not bother with it.

If your incentive is purely financial, do the sums before jumping ship. If your incentive is a workplace free of all the BS, lies, trick and brick walls, jump at the chance to join JHAS (assuming that Romulus is genuine in his postings)

I'd say do your sums, do your pros and cons, do every analysis open to you before jumping ship. As for the BS, well, there's enough out there to show we at least try to get away from it, I've had some blunt discussions with people and told them things they don't really want to hear. But it was the simple truth of the matter so that's what was put on the table. Equally some (and thanfully the number is growing) trust me enough to give me the blunt facts back. That is the culture we want.

Not neccesarily pleasant but what would you prefer - the plain facts or the BS?

Your answer to that should determine part of your answer as to whether you apply to come work for us or not.

Bolty McBolt

14th May 2007, 06:40

Romulus

I enjoy reading your posts.
You appear fair dinkum, something that is a rarity in engineering management circles, I hope you can keep the communication up and the BS out.

To add this thread. I have just read that Jet * plan on hiring 50 aircraft engineers (where they will get them from who knows) surely this will stretch the pool of available/employable enginners to the limit.

How do plan to combat this if you need staff, How will you compete?

Your thoughts, as the pool of engineers is starting to dry up and Virgin is about to employ also, due increasing Domestic fleet and the introduction of the International fleet.

No SAR No Details

14th May 2007, 06:58

So you mean to tell me that QF management weren't being truthfull in their notice to staff?
I'm devestated:{ :{

Redstone

14th May 2007, 07:00

Good point Bolty makes there Romulus. National Jet and Eastern also recruiting.

No SAR No Details

14th May 2007, 07:03

You won't get many ex sydney heavy engineers unless the money is exceptional. They are all getting comfortable in new careers and enjoying the weekends off.

TheHoff

14th May 2007, 07:15

Over the last 18 months i have spent quite a bit of time on and off at AAES helping the guys with the checks on our aircraft. The one thing that stands out for me is the experience, support and willingness of the guys there to help with anything we need. There dedication and commitment to AAES and it's customers is second to none even though there future was very shaky.

I have no idea what sort of package they are offering, but if it is even close to what i am currently on i would be there in a flash. I just have to convince my misses to move to Melbourne which would be the hard part.

Romulus let me know if you have anything coming up north in the future and also i must thankyou for your honesty. I think a lot of managers could learn a thing or 2 from you.

TheHoff

NAS1801

14th May 2007, 07:15

No SAR No Details

14th May 2007, 07:34

So how does that relate to the Qantas claim that because of the JHAS deal the QF LAME EBA log of claims will have to ammended.
The base rate for the lowest paid useable LAME at QF is 53k + shift and o/t.

Buster Hyman

14th May 2007, 08:30

Hmmm...travel benefits as a factor in your wage calculations...tricky!

I was once told by HR at AN that whilst "Your salary is lower than outside in the non aviation environment, it's more than compensated by the travel benefits!"

Of course, when that was said, I was on ID97.5, got guaranteed "K" class annual leave seats & there were plenty of seats around for travel at other times.

NAS1801, if QF truly include the travel benefit as part of your package, I'd be claiming for any unused component annually! You just couldn't get a seat at AN towards the end. I imagine that its the same for QF staff.

A lot of people underestimate the value of job satisfaction when calculating their wage. I've learned that the hard way. I'm doing okay $$$ wise, but I'm not enjoying the job. If I had the skills required, I'd be jamming their inbox everyday because it sounds like Utopia!

Hmmm...I do know that Manitenance base like tha back of my hand....might add that to the CV!

NAS1801

14th May 2007, 08:54

Buster, personally, I feel staff travel is a worthwhile benefit. I do know a few employees that don't. Yes, I do take into account this benefit when considering alternative employment as not having the ability to travel on this discount has impact upon my lifestyle. Some may not agree with this... some may.

No SAR No Details

14th May 2007, 09:05

Staff travel doesnt pay the Council rates, the petrol in the car, the school fees, the electricity bills,the gas bills, the f@cking vege bills.

Buster Hyman

14th May 2007, 10:51

I'm glad it still works for you NAS. :ok: Don't get me wrong, I've seen the world courtesy of AN's interline agreements but from where I am right here, right now, staff travel just wouldn't figure in my calculations. (For the record, security is my new #1...especially after...you know when!):(

Horses for courses naturally & I'm not denying its value, just the ability to use it these days...(Oh god...here he goes again!:ugh:)...still, it would have to be one of the big reasons, if not the biggest reason people join the airlines.

NAS1801

14th May 2007, 10:55

No SAR, I think you are reading too much into my post.... if I did not travel as much as I do, I probably wouldn't care too much. As I said, this is MY view. Something I feel I must consider. If it's not important to you, then so be it. I never suggested that it is important to every employee, merely that it should be considered.

YesTAM

14th May 2007, 20:57

As anyone who has done it will tell you, staff travel is a lure for people outside the industry, but it's not what its cracked up to be for most for the following reasons:

1. If you can't afford a holiday at all, its not much of a benefit. Bear in mind that the land component of said holiday can be much more than the aviation component.

2. "Wait Listing" means that you spend the last week in England phoning each day to check the loadings - and being stuck in an overseas port because of a lack of seats is not sufficient excuse for returning late from leave. This is not fun.

3. If you have kids, and are confined to school holiday periods for travel, forget it!

Not sure what the QF rules would be, but you might want to research them if you think travel is going to be your big drawcard.

True, if you have relatives overseas, and can finesse it, you can have a few cheap holidays, but the rules that apply to engineers were quite restricitve, at least in my days, but didn't appear to apply to skygods who would flit around and boast about weekends in Honolulu and suchlike.

Romulus

15th May 2007, 09:42

Romulus

I enjoy reading your posts.

It's a fair trade, your industry has given me back a great deal of satisfaction in my corporate life. Every Monday when I get to teh roundabout on Operations Road I'm grinning from ear to ear.

And so far the guys (and girl) haven't got sick of me asking pretty basic LAME/AME 101 questions, they indulge me by letting me assist during tests (Yes there is a light, it's blue, yes there is a tone, it's a repeating broekn tone) and childish as it seems that gives me a bit of a buzz.

I'm sure to you guys it's all old hat but I am loving it.

You appear fair dinkum, something that is a rarity in engineering management circles, I hope you can keep the communication up and the BS out.

Well, in my sort of engineering field we're pretty straight up and blunt. We'll argue like mad in private, agree a psoition and then in public there's one team position. Doesn't always work but that's normally teh case.

That's what we hope to bring to AAES.

To add this thread. I have just read that Jet * plan on hiring 50 aircraft engineers (where they will get them from who knows) surely this will stretch the pool of available/employable enginners to the limit.

Yes and no. Yes it will on their type, equally we have a pool of guys to work older types. WE'll happily pay for additional licences, that's what an MRO needs and that's why our strategy is pretty much irrelevant to QF, they're much better off having people with the one licence for th etype they will work on.

How do plan to combat this if you need staff, How will you compete?

Staffing is not currently a problem, equally we recgonise our avreage LAME age is 53.7 years. We have coimmitted to running a substantial apprenticeship programme, not sure how many we'll go for in year 1 but we are aiming for an intake of 30 per year across various aviation trades within a couple of years. That may vary depending on need, ultimately I'd like more but that all depends on how much work I can win for us.

Your thoughts, as the pool of engineers is starting to dry up and Virgin is about to employ also, due increasing Domestic fleet and the introduction of the International fleet.

Step 1: Respect. We (JH in general), respect trades and engineering. Work for us and you know you're amongst people who, whilst not having the hands on skills you do, will certainly be able to appreceiate teh work you do.

Step 2: Make it easy. You want in, we'll do our best. We run salaries so that you get super across everything not just the basic hours and we ask you to come to work when there is work to do and go home when there isn't. Be flexible for us and life gets pretty sweet in both directions. THis one will take a while to learn but once it's in there's no desire to go back.

Step 3: Be straight. Not every bit of news is nice, not every message is popular. Big deal, treat people like adults and tell them straight. Just make sure you tell them the good as well as the bad.

Step 4: Listen. I talk lots, I try to listen more.

Step 5: Never lose the fascination.

That's about it.

Romulus

15th May 2007, 09:46

You won't get many ex sydney heavy engineers unless the money is exceptional. They are all getting comfortable in new careers and enjoying the weekends off.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If you're in it for the money this is not the trade for you. Be a sparkie in the mines. On the other hand, if you enjoy fixing aircraft and you want a reasonable living (one of those non BS messages - we do have to compete with much lower labour rates so don't think this is a high paying job, come into it knowing it's a reasonable living doing something you enjoy) and you'll be at home amongst us.

My wife works in teh finance industry. She earns 3 times what I do. She works with people whose bonus is 20 times what I earn.

But none of them are as happy as me and there is NO way I am joining them (and yes I get offers to do so).

Romulus

15th May 2007, 09:50

I have no idea what sort of package they are offering, but if it is even close to what i am currently on i would be there in a flash. I just have to convince my misses to move to Melbourne which would be the hard part.

I'm guessing you're at Williamtown (Newcastle location showing) rather than commuting to Brisvegas or somesuch. We run outstations around the place, PM me and let me know where you want to go. I may not have anything (Williamtown is not on teh agenda), equally we might.

Romulus let me know if you have anything coming up north in the future and also i must thankyou for your honesty. I think a lot of managers could learn a thing or 2 from you.

It's not hard and it's the JH way of doing things. I may be wrong, I try to avoid it but at least by asking questions I've already learned plenty.

Most managers are too scared of the reaction to bad news, as if that somehow prevents it from occurring. I prefer to be so up front that it sometimes hurts. In the long run that's better (IMHO).

Romulus

15th May 2007, 10:27

OK. I will roughly go through the sums.

As an example. An AME at Qantas, who is at almost the highest level of the Qantas pay scales, last financial year ending 30 June 2006, (rounded to the nearest hundred), earned $68,000. The AME has been with the company around 10 years.

Upper end AME for us, no question of that.

The base rate for this AME was $45,300. This AME therefore, made $22,700 in overtime and shift penalties. (A LOT of overtime, I may add)

Which means the AME gets super only on the $45,300, if they were to be paid a salary of $68K at JHAS they get super on the whole $68K. Difference in $$ (which goes into super to be invested etc) is approx $2000.

Bear that in mind, that's hard cash going into your super to be invested. It is also the calculation used for insurance payouts if you die and the money goes to support your family.

As stated, this AME is at the upper end of the Qantas pay scales. An important incentive to Qantas staff is the travel benefit. My example traveled overseas and interstate to the Staff travel value of $3,300 (Business class travel). If they were not entitled to that benefit, they would have spent $8,519 (economy travel).

Travel is a tricky one, each individual must answer that for themselves. We certainly cannot offer it as a benefit.

This means, if they were to leave Qantas, a component of their new wage / salary would be compensation for nil travel benefit. In this case, around $8,500.

The AME in question, would have to earn $76,500 at JHAS to break even. This is very close to the upper limit of the JHAS pay scales for AME's. ($45,000 to $75,000).

Unless JHAS employ the AME above, on around the highest pay scale, $75,000, I don't see the move being worth.

What if the AME has a heart attack and is too paralysed to work but is not declared totally incapacitated? At JHAS they go on to salary continuance until they turn 65. Most other places they get paid until their various forms of leave run out and then they're on their own.

There's a bunch of JHAS staff benefits (most popular is salary sacrificing for up to 12 weeks annual leave apparently), the guys all heva these as part of their employment packs. Ask them what they think of it.

But in hard dollar terms - don't forget that in a salary situation super is paid across your entire salary, on the clock you get super only on your base rate for 38 hours. That's the key hard and fast benefit in cash terms, everything else you have to rate subjectively.

However, with all the BS at Qantas, the lack of training available and the constant threats to offshore, it may be worth the move.

We're not perfect, but at least we're engineers and we respect engineering.

Apophis

15th May 2007, 10:59

please STOP the spin.

Romulus

15th May 2007, 11:03

please STOP the spin.

Please feel free to stop reading, I'm not aware we're forcing you to.

If you can't handle it when we're up front with you then, sadly, that's a problem you need to deal with.

Apophis

15th May 2007, 11:23

if your so up front and who you claim to be why not just post positions vacant and details here.

No SAR No Details

15th May 2007, 11:50

Romulus,
If I was a Mechanical Lame with extensive heavy maintenance experience on 744s how much would I get paid for a job at JHAS?

Apophis

15th May 2007, 12:14

just post all the information and stop the spin

Romulus

15th May 2007, 12:28

if your so up front and who you claim to be why not just post positions vacant and details here.

Good idea.

2 questions:

1. Is this allowed by the rules of this forum?
2. If you search you'll find I have actually done so.....

Romulus

15th May 2007, 12:31

Romulus,
If I was a Mechanical Lame with extensive heavy maintenance experience on 744s how much would I get paid for a job at JHAS?

Honest answer at this stage is nil as we simply don't have any 744 work so we'd be honest enough to say so.

Equally, to give the answer another way, if you're a 73-200 LAME who does the Norfolk Island run/stay, works in out stations, works variou shifts etc then you're up to about $130K, possibly more depending on the hours commitment and the needs of the business.

Lowest paid LAME I can think of is on about $75K for basic work week.

Romulus

15th May 2007, 12:35

just post all the information and stop the spin

How about you post a picture of you crying all those bitter tears as I need a good laugh.

Equally if there's a decent sort of question you want answered have the balls to ask it, I'll give you a straight answer as I have attempted to do elsewhere (and I haven't seen anyone complaning I've ducked a question yet).

Otherwise you're relegated to the bullsh*t artist bucket and are hereby dubbed Muppet.

Your call - ask a straight question or simply remain a mouth and recite worthless mantras. If you choose the latter I wish you well wherever you work.

NAS1801

16th May 2007, 07:26

please STOP the spin. I second Romulus... stop reading if you are not interested. There is genuine valid discussion going on in this thread. You don't have to read it.

Buster Hyman

16th May 2007, 08:28

Yes, it seems the moment you reveal yourself on Dunnunda, there's always someone who wants to snipe at you from the security of anonymity. Dick Smith comes to mind...

I don't profess to know all the issues at AAES or Dick's agenda, but both have pretty much identified themselves to all & sundry on this forum. If you can't make a point without resorting to sniping, then why do you bother at all?

Allow them some credit for giving credence to their posts.

Bumpfoh

16th May 2007, 11:33

Romulus

18th May 2007, 01:22

OK then, I've read with interest and since you say to ask then here goes.

I have mechanical B737-300/400 & NG , B767-200/300 with all possible engine types and B747-400 again with all possible engine type endorsements and 20 years experience.

Allowing for the not needed jumbo endo and possibly the 767, what could I expect to earn with JH assuming I would be willing to work a 7 day roster???

Genuine Q here.:ok:

Assuming 7 days covers all shifts and the willingness to travel then with that degree of flexibility you'd be at the upper end of our scales IF we can win the work (note that as an MRO we place a much higher value on a guy who is prepared to be flexible as opposed to the number of qualifications - we can provide training to get those, the flexible attitude is much harder to come by). Our top paid guys are currently the 73-200 guys as they fly everywhere for Ozjet and work a bucketload of hours. Old technology, not as glamourous and in the in house airline engineering world more lowly rated. But for us it's what we do so we pay accordingly.

It's not a straight "these quals equals this salary" type of thing, we sit down and discuss with you what you want to work, how you want to work it, do you want non standard benefits (eg 12 weeks annual leave), do you have any specific/personal requirements and the like. The initial salaries for AAES employees were determined by their historical pay plus the pay rise due under their EBA. When someone new joins we sit down and work out where they fit relative to the existing guys and pay accodingly - that way we maintain consistency for our current guys so they don't get left behind and we know who we expect to work weekends or public holidays etc.

If you're interested feel free to PM me and we'll start the ball rolling, you don't have to commit, it may be that teh Aircraft Services Mgr doesn't need the types you have, if so it will be brief but we'll at least know where you are coming from.