PDA

View Full Version : QF Strike threat may ground planes.


Ngineer
6th Nov 2009, 09:32
Qantas strike threat may ground planes


November 6, 2009


(http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BYJK0XvrzSrX_Moyk6QPfxfWUCbTK6oEB9OvFmgvAjbcBgNs1EAEYASDy xe0IKAQ4AFCZ9bu4_v____8BYKX4kYCQAaAB3JuW_QOyARF3d3cudGhlYWdl LmNvbS5hdcgBAdoBW2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhlYWdlLmNvbS5hdS9idXNpbmVz cy9xYW50YXMtc3RyaWtlLXRocmVhdC1tYXktZ3JvdW5kLXBsYW5lcy0yMDA5 MTEwNS1pMGF2Lmh0bWyAAgGpAntfhk4pma4-qAMB6APLAegDlgXoA4wD9QMCAAAE9QMAAAAQ&num=1&sig=AGiWqtwpcQ0NzBpa8ainBVviqQagV0vttQ&client=ca-fairfax-age_js&adurl=http://www.learnshares.com.au/index.php/More-Share-Trading-Information/Company-Stocks-ASX-100/Qantas-Airways-Limited-QAN-Buy-Hold-or-Sell-Shares.html)
QANTAS passengers face disruptions in coming weeks after professional engineers voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action for the first time in the airline's history.
The stand-off with the engineers over conditions and pay is the first real test of the relationship between Qantas' new management and its heavily unionised workforce.
Although professional engineers number only about 130 at Qantas, they are a crucial part of the engineering workforce because they must sign off on any significant maintenance work before aircraft are allowed to fly. Strike action could force Qantas to ground aircraft.
Members of the engineers' union, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, will meet today at 1pm in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to decide what action to take. Yesterday, 98 per cent of the professional engineers voted to take industrial action, after talks with the company over the past seven months failed to resolve their differences.
Union director Catherine Bolger said the dispute centred on the out-of-hours work required to maintain the airline's fleet and demand for pay parity with other workers. She cited occasions where, in a 24-hour period, some senior engineers had to approve maintenance tasks with less than five hours' sleep between jobs.
The engineers' enterprise bargaining agreement expired in June and in any new deal they want to bring their salary in line with other Qantas staff.
''We are calling on [Qantas' chief executive] Alan Joyce to resolve this dispute,'' Ms Bolger said. ''He has indicated that he wants to have a more constructive relationship with the workforce than was the case under his predecessor.''
Ms Bolger said the industrial action could result in the grounding of Qantas aircraft if the dispute escalated ''but that is not where we want to go''.
A Qantas spokeswoman said the airline was ''disappointed'' the union was taking action and insisted it had not walked away from the negotiating table.
‘‘If industrial action is taken by the union Qantas has contingency plans in place, which will mean there will be no disruptions to travel or aircraft,’’ she said. ‘‘ We won’t be grounding aircraft.’’
‘‘We remain disappointed that action will be taken and that 30 per cent pay increases over three years is completely unreasonable,’’ she said.


I thought 30% over 3 years was a bit rich, but then after considering what GD walked away with for less than 12 months work.... maybe the are onto something.

Arnold E
6th Nov 2009, 10:16
I'm not involved, BUT 11.5 mill (Diko's payout) devided by 130 (engineers ) = 884615.
Seens like a fair pay rise to me based on the importance to the company:ok:

Unhinged
6th Nov 2009, 10:47
11,500,000 / 130 = $88,461.50 Hope the ginger beers do their maths a bit better. It's still a lot of money though.

Arnold E
6th Nov 2009, 11:24
OOPS, forgot the decimal point:\

Ultralights
6th Nov 2009, 12:02
10 yrs to late fellas!

hewlett
6th Nov 2009, 18:16
I note its the "professional" engineers who are in dispute now.Should be easy for QF and the journos to blame this on the LAME union , as well as any other labour problem that pops up over the next gazillian years.

aussiepilot
6th Nov 2009, 20:28
How much do these guys currently earn?

Transition Layer
6th Nov 2009, 21:26
How are these guys different to the LAMEs that dispatch aircraft on the line?

Or are the "professional" engineers the blokes in Maintenance Watch etc?

mcgrath50
6th Nov 2009, 21:50
One news article reported them as being Degree Qualified and able to sign of on non-standard maintenance or something like that, dunno how accurate that is though.

MELKBQF
6th Nov 2009, 23:56
These are the guys that have authority to make devaitions from the aircraft manufacturers manuals. Ie an aircraft may have been dented by a ground vehicle beyond the manufacturers limits, these guys can give an approval to get the aircraft back to a main base for repair.

FMU
7th Nov 2009, 00:30
The guys in question are not LAMEs or AMEs. They are degree qualified aeronautical, mechanical, electrical or structural engineers. Some are issued with CAR 32 or 45 approvals to issue Engineering Authorities to approve maintenance outside of AMM limits, etc. They are office workers, Mon- Fri, and those with the CAR approvals are rostered "on call" out-of -hours to provide EA relief. As such they are not members of the ALAEA.

Ngineer
7th Nov 2009, 01:23
How are these guys different to the LAMEs that dispatch aircraft on the line?

Or are the "professional" engineers the blokes in Maintenance Watch etc?


As per the previous posts, these are Professional Engineers that work in Tech Services and the like, issuing EA's and sorting through AD's, etc. They are many of the unknown faces working to keep the airline safe, but to management they are probably a bunch of unknown plebs that have no real purpose, worthy of nothing more than 3% (if they are lucky).

I am sure that the usual "contingency plans" are in place, should there be any action, so things will run like clockwork.:cool:

lordofthewings
7th Nov 2009, 03:49
Its CAR 35:ok:

Transition Layer
7th Nov 2009, 07:37
Thanks fellas...just curious :ok:

Black Hands
7th Nov 2009, 08:35
They are many of the unknown faces working to keep the airline safe,

It would be in Qantas management's best interest to find a hasty resolution and avoid another long protracted dispute... Although few in numbers, the "tech services" or "professional" engineers are also the unknown faces that attempt to minimise schedule interruption... Whether it be quickly assessing skin damage beyond the manufacturers limits due to a wayward cargo loader or lightning strike damage in a ramp environment, to engineering a large corrosion repair in the hangar these guys are integral to the day to day operation of the airline...
I would be very interested to hear more details from the guys involved, and I lend my pen in support... ;)

Cheers.

griffin one
7th Nov 2009, 10:13
May your pens run dry at the eleventh hour, when the car 35 signature is required. The same old story of never has so much been owed to so few by so many. Stay strong and let the lames request numerous EA requests between 2300 hrs and 0500. When GD walks with 11 mil and joyce decides he really wants an airline instead of a low cost bus service, Maybe all who wear the white rat on a red background will once again go above and beyond.

Eastwest Loco
7th Nov 2009, 13:17
Had one of my regular corporate pax shift from SYD CGK nonstop QF J class to SYD SIN CGK F class on SQ - about $200 dearer and a good option.

These threats of strikes etc have good basis, but they do damage the base you are standing on. The media doesn't help either in he way the interpret what you have said for maximum effect.

No criticism at all from here as I have no right to, but if you do not have information of the effect then you cannot evaluate what is going on.

Best all

EWL

airsupport
7th Nov 2009, 20:22
They probably do have a case if it is true, however it is also ridiculous that the people that release the aircraft for flight day in and day out (LAMEs) have no limits on their duty time. :(

I have always thought it crazy, the Pilots that fly the aircraft have very strict limits on their duty times, but NO limits at all on the people that certify the safety of the same aircraft. :(

And I don't mean like maybe having to extend a little while after a shift, I mean for example having already been working over 24 hours straight, having to continue to work and certify for an aircraft because there is nobody else there that can do so. :(

plasticmerc
7th Nov 2009, 21:49
here here air support.

the topic of lame duty times are a sore point in everyones behind.
There are no duty limits on the poor lame. I can not understand that.
Are the flight crew the only people that feel fatigued after 10 hours?
Are they the only ones with flight critical roles?
Unfortunately there are alot of engineers that don't want duty times because they need the money, companies don't want duty times as they might actually have to train or employ more engineers.
Engineers usually have to work at wierd hours, sometimes long hours and my favorite be on call so that they can come in at short notice and fix a broken a/c.
Our numbers across the planet are relatively small and ageing. I mean the last ime I looked at the CASA web site the average age was 55.
Even with the modern fleet that airlines have today at least (majors) don't want to get into the GA side right now, we still need more and more qualified and experienced certifiers, do we not?
Duty times for engineers are a valid topic albiet a not so favourable one for many people out there.

gobbledock
7th Nov 2009, 23:14
Firstly, every airline has an obligation to its employee's called 'duty of care'.
If ,lets say, Engineer's are working shifts such as double's ,or as airsupport pointed out shifts of 24 hours in duration, then the airline leaves itself open to a huge lawsuit if there is an injury or death. That is only one issue of many.
Secondly, ICAO is ramping up an emphasis on the the Fatigue Risk Management side of industry, and this has gained momentum since the Colgan Air accident and changes are on their way. Whether an employee likes the overtime $$ or not, long overdue changes in this are of risk management are coming.
Thirdly, with the introduction of SMS into the aviation industry,I think it will be very interesting to see the changes that will have to be made in relation to rosters, tasking,fatigue etc. Plasticmerc hit the nail on the head, it is not just flight crews who suffer from fatigue.
If Senior Airline Management still delude themselves into believing that only the Drivers up front are ' the only risk within a diverse and complex operation' then they had better pull their heads out of their asses and grasp an understanding of SMS and the differnce between responsibility and accountability. Accoutability rests upon the head of the CEO, and it will be his/her ass that ends up in jail.

airsupport
8th Nov 2009, 00:30
as airsupport pointed out shifts of 24 hours in duration

Actually I did not say that exactly, I have NEVER been rostered for a 24 hour long SHIFT, that would obviously NOT be legal.

Just that is how it has worked out, many times a scheduled check or rectifications have gone on much longer than "planned", and then although I was sometimes literally falling asleep on my feet, have had to keep going as there was nobody else there that could release the aircraft.

I have been flying with Pilots that have had to go slightly over their ''normal'' limits to complete a flight in progress, but nothing like is expected of LAMEs.

I will never understand why there is NO hard limit for LAMEs, even if was say a ridiculous figure of maybe 20 or even 24 hours straight. :ugh:

airsupport
8th Nov 2009, 00:34
PS........ Just thought I should mention, I am NOT having a go at Qantas here, I was never with them, just the Industry in general and the lack of duty time limits for LAMEs, and other Technical Staff. :ok:

gobbledock
8th Nov 2009, 01:03
G'day airsupport. Sorry mate if my response sounded as if I was saying that you were rostered for 24 hours. I certainly didnt mean for that to be read that way. For other readers of this thread please be aware that any figures I gave mentioned are not in reference to airsupport actually working those hours. And as with airsupport, I too am not saying that QF undertakes this practise, but it is a problem that is widespread.
My meaning was that some people in the industry are working double's or shifts up to 24 hours duration. And yes, its not rostered but it is ADHOC occurences which happen from time to time, but the outcome remains the same - fatigue.
Every person's role in Aviation is integral to the safe operation,regardless of position.
Cheers

satos
8th Nov 2009, 01:06
Many companies of today will try to run the worker into the ground with excessive workloads so they can make a profit,but in the aviation industry the end result might be an aircraft been run into the ground.

airsupport
8th Nov 2009, 01:47
G'day airsupport. Sorry mate if my response sounded as if I was saying that you were rostered for 24 hours. I certainly didnt mean for that to be read that way.

NO worries, and NO need to apologise, it is just some people here can be very picky let's say, and I just didn't want to be misquoted. :ok:

I personally have never been rostered for 24 hours or more, just it has often turned out that way, and it has been ''expected'' that I would do it, with nothing official on paper. :(

I also have NO problems with Flight Crews having strict limits on their duty hours, a VERY GOOD idea, just I have never seen the logic in the new thoroughly refreshed Flight Crew turning up in the morning to operate the aircraft, when sometimes the person responsible for the safety of their aircraft (prior to them accepting it) has NO limits on his duty, and may have been on duty for 24 hours or more and might not be sure what day it is, let alone what on Earth they are talking about. :ugh:

Crazy......... :(

Socket
8th Nov 2009, 22:21
I attended a CASA human factors course in Adelaide about 4 years ago and the subject of fatigue effects on engineers was thoroughly discussed. We were presented with some pretty scary figures on the maintenance error rate escalation in comparison to hours of duty. We were pretty much told we had a duty of care to ensure fatigue was managed.

When we asked CASA why, if it is such a glaring safety issue, they would not take steps to regulate engineer duty times as they do for pilots, SILENCE.

Off the record I was informed that there wasnt a lobby strong enough for it, given that the Majors ( Q et al ) would fight tooth and nail against it.

airsupport
8th Nov 2009, 23:08
When we asked CASA why, if it is such a glaring safety issue, they would not take steps to regulate engineer duty times as they do for pilots, SILENCE.

Therein lies the problem. :(

Individual LAMEs (and I am guessing these other Engineers) cannot do anything about it themselves, and even the Safety Regulator, KNOWING it is a safety issue, will do NOTHING. :(

As I said before even if it cannot be like the Pilots, with a maximum duty time of 11 or 12 hours (or whatever it is now), surely there should be some limit, even if it was 20 or 24 hours or even longer, SOMETHING. :(

OlAME
9th Nov 2009, 00:54
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .

IAW
9th Nov 2009, 01:28
Couldn't you have made your point without a broad swipe at LAMEs? Seems like you injected that bit in there purely to ruffle some feathers.

airsupport
9th Nov 2009, 02:26
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .

I don't know where this is coming from, unless you are one of the PEs as you call them? :confused:

I have never worked for Qantas, so I don't know what it is like there and thus would NOT comment about the situation there, but I was an LAME for some 35 years with Australian registered aircraft, throughout Australia and Worldwide.

I am sure these PEs do a job, however I have never ever consulted one regarding problems with an aircraft, maybe it is different at Qantas, especially maybe in heavy maintenance?

In fact one place I worked it was the opposite, one of them I knew personally used to be always phoning me up on the Line asking about how to do something, much to the amusement of everyone else on the Line. Also I will never forget when I was an Apprentice back in the early 1960s, and the LAMEs went on strike, we had to work with these PEs who were replacing the LAMEs, and we Apprentices had to show these highly paid PEs what to do, they couldn't even do things like change bulkheads etc.

I am sure they serve a purpose, and they should have some limits on their duty hours, as definitely LAMEs should too. :ugh:

gutso-blundo
9th Nov 2009, 02:35
Like so many "good ideas" in aviation, all that happens is that the academics come up with the data from research, other academics review it and say "hmm, there's something in this", they present their findings, and occasionally it even gets turned into a safety seminar. Attendees of the seminar also come away thinking "hmmm, a lot of sense in that", and all walk away and duely disregard it on cost basis.
Then years down the track, lo and behold, an incident happens, gets investigated and the subject of that seminar that everyone's forgotten about turns out to be a contributing factor. Questions get asked, public gets swayed and only then does it get legislated, although often in watered-down form after "industry consultation", read commercial interests... :ugh:
Or is my understanding of "affordable safety" off the mark?

Socket
9th Nov 2009, 03:50
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .


Christ OIAME,
I have gone back and had a read of all your posts here on PPRUNE.What happened to you.
Couldnt pass the basics?
A LAME screwed your wife?
Get sacked for incompetence by a LAME?
Must have been something serious because I have never seen so much hate filled bile directed at LAME's by one person before.

Do us all a favour and just FUKC OFF.

novice110
9th Nov 2009, 04:57
I am sure these PEs do a job, however I have never ever consulted one regarding problems with an aircraft

Just curious, what did you do when your maintenance manual said no?
Or when there was no approved manual for your particular fix?

Honest question, (from a pilot) I thought this was where LAME's needed to get technical authorisation from a CASA delegate? (PE)

airsupport
9th Nov 2009, 06:37
Just curious, what did you do when your maintenance manual said no?
Or when there was no approved manual for your particular fix?

Honest question, (from a pilot) I thought this was where LAME's needed to get technical authorisation from a CASA delegate? (PE)

As I said before I have never ever worked for Qantas, so I don't know what they do, maybe they do this all the time, especially in heavy maintenance.

I have never had a problem that we couldn't either fix on site or get around somehow, like with an MEL.

Much of the time it wasn't a practical option anyway even IF we had of needed their help, especially in places like Saigon, Taipei, Moscow or even New York.

Sure it is not a problem at Qantas Sydney, maybe as someone suggested the LAMEs there rely on these PEs too much, I don't know. :confused:

bubble.head
9th Nov 2009, 07:01
How much does these Engineers get paid? I don't blame them, given how much Dixon recieved for just a few months worth of work last year. I am sure most employee of this company would ask why are we getting paid peanuts, while our CEO et al are taking home the fat bacon!

novice110
9th Nov 2009, 07:42
I have never had a problem that we couldn't either fix on site or get around somehow, like with an MEL.

Ok so maybe when you're dealing with over one hundred airframes it is possible to imagine a few situations where the MEL gives no joy.

How did you get the aircraft back from the outports?

airsupport
9th Nov 2009, 08:36
Ok so maybe when you're dealing with over one hundred airframes it is possible to imagine a few situations where the MEL gives no joy.

How did you get the aircraft back from the outports?

As I said (several times) I don't know anything about Qantas, so will NOT comment on your hundreds of airframes.

Most of the situations I have been involved with and was referring to (both about fixing them and also ridiculous hours on duty) were Overseas where we only had the one airframe, IF we couldn't fix it or get around a problem, it didn't operate until it was fixed. We had no what you call PEs on site or even in the Countries involved.

On a few occassions we had outside help, from other Airlines, or people from Airbus one time with a major problem in Canada, but most of the time you just have to get by.

superdimona
9th Nov 2009, 08:47
Also I will never forget when I was an Apprentice back in the early 1960s, and the LAMEs went on strike, we had to work with these PEs who were replacing the LAMEs, and we Apprentices had to show these highly paid PEs what to do, they couldn't even do things like change bulkheads etc.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that they couldn't change bulkheads - it isn't their job. I'm reasonably sure that if you sat a typical LAME in front of a simple first year Engineering Mathematics exam, they'd struggle as well.

PE's and LAMEs do two different jobs that complement each other.

airsupport
9th Nov 2009, 09:14
PE's and LAMEs do two different jobs that complement each other.

YES, very true, and I didn't say any different. :ok:

Just that personally, luckily I have never had to use one. ;)

Another difference too that many may not know, these PEs are able to approve certain modifications and/or repairs to an aircraft that an LAME cannot approve, HOWEVER when the modification or repair has been done to the aircraft ONLY an LAME can certify for it and release the aircraft to service, NOT a PE unless he is also an LAME.

So YES they do complement each other. :ok:

novice110
9th Nov 2009, 10:53
As I said (several times) I don't know anything about Qantas, so will NOT comment on your hundreds of airframes.

And I read that you don't work for qantas (several times). Either do I. I guess I'm just exploring why you care to have input on something you really have nothing to do with. And further, you add weight to your posts by boasting your 30+ years experience... In relation to this issue you might aswell have 30 years as check in staff.

Please I'm not having a shot at you, just trying to provide some balance.

And I agree, LAME's work bloody hard, and for too long.

Cheers:ok:

Sunfish
9th Nov 2009, 19:10
Try running your airline without a few professional engineers around and see how far you get.

airsupport
9th Nov 2009, 21:10
Try running your airline without a few professional engineers around and see how far you get.

A hell of a lot further than you will without a few LAMEs around. ;)

ampclamp
10th Nov 2009, 04:26
Please dont start the lame v degree qualified engineer stuff.

Both are required for the safe ops of an airline, full stop.
The jobs are different and complementary.

The 10% prob wont see the light of day but they are free to campaign as they see fit iaw the law.

It's between their union and the company.What they get paid is none of my business and if they can screw a few bucks out of them good luck to them.

I must add that as a LAME I get tired of fending of the "why are you guys striking again" queries.
Great reporting at work.:yuk:

airsupport
12th Nov 2009, 21:55
NO further comments on who does what, who is more needed and/or more overworked :ok: just that I see on the news this morning that these PEs at Qantas are taking industrial action this weekend, apparently they are NOT available for duty (call outs etc) from 5pm today until 9am Monday.

crow17
12th Nov 2009, 22:10
I know that the PE's supported the Qantas LAME's during their industrial action 18 months ago...I would just like to see the same support given back.

airsupport
13th Nov 2009, 02:30
Will this action on a weekend achieve much though? :confused:

I would not have thought it would affect flight operations just over one weekend, unless their is a sudden spate of accidents, vehicles hitting aircraft etc...... :eek:

Just curious too, as I said never had the pleasure of working with Qantas, do they have spare aircraft sitting around normally on weekends, this would also help them neutralise any industrial action by these PEs? :confused:

ampclamp
13th Nov 2009, 03:56
yes qantas do have spare capacity particularly on weekends.it can evaporate pretty quickly though.
All it needs is for a couple of lightning strikes (common), another cracked hori stab on an 737-800 and a service vehicle to hit an aircraft and capacity is gone and the structures guys will be needed in a hurry.
I dont know how many staffers have CAR approvals but they could find themselves quite busy in the wee hours.

airsupport
13th Nov 2009, 04:08
Okay thanks, I thought a Company like Qantas would have some spare aircraft to call on, I guess they may even plan to have more on standby over the weekend by adjusting their schedules.

According to this news site it will be after hours during next week too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

QANTAS says industrial action staged by its engineers will not ground aircraft, as a ban on overtime and out-of-hours call-outs comes into effect today.

Qantas' professional engineers will stage industrial action indefinitely to protest working conditions they claim may affect the safe operation of the airline.

The engineers' union, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA), says the move may ground a number of Qantas and Jetstar planes.

Bans on overtime and out-of-hours call-outs will commence at 5pm (AEDT) on today and last until 9am on Monday, the union says.

The action will re-commence on Monday at 5pm and will last until Tuesday at 8am and continue on the same daily pattern indefinitely.

Qantas said it had contingency plans in place.

"There will not be any disruption to our operations and I can assure customers that they can travel with confidence," Qantas corporate affairs manager David Epstein said in a statement today.

"Aircraft will not be grounded and safety will, as always, remain our top priority."

However, APESMA director Catherine Bolger said the industrial action would cause disruption to services.

"The industrial action may ... result in some Qantas and Jetstar planes not being allowed to fly, causing disruptions," Ms Bolger said.

Mr Bolger said all the professional engineers were asking for is proper recognition of their role.

"They also want management to address what is a serious issue of fatigue caused by long hours and after-work call-outs."

Qantas employs about 190 professional engineers in an workforce of 5,500 people.

The professional engineers form a small part of the airline's engineering workforce but must sign off on any significant maintenance work before planes are allowed to fly.

Ms Bolger said some professional engineers have been called to address complex issues with less than five hours sleep since their last shift.

A Qantas spokeswoman said the thrust of the enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) negotiations has been about wages.

The union wants a 30 per cent increase over three years, she said, which Qantas has deemed "completely unreasonable".

rammel
13th Nov 2009, 23:27
These actions may not cause disruptions this weekend or next, but it will eventually. Imagine if on a Saturday flight into Queenstown a B737-800 is hit by ground equip, who is going to authourise a fix or flight. It won't be back in Aust for both the Saturday and Sunday, probably wouldn't be back Monday either. By the time the aircraft is repaired it will have probably been out of service for 4-5 days. Yet according to management this sort of thing will have no effect on operations.

In this scenario you could change the aircraft for a B744er in SFO or EZE and a similar thing would happen. So you can see the potential for some very long delays for pax and having the aircraft out of service.

QF94
13th Nov 2009, 23:48
These actions may not cause disruptions this weekend or next, but it will eventually. Imagine if on a Saturday flight into Queenstown a B737-800 is hit by ground equip, who is going to authourise a fix or flight. It won't be back in Aust for both the Saturday and Sunday, probably wouldn't be back Monday either. By the time the aircraft is repaired it will have probably been out of service for 4-5 days. Yet according to management this sort of thing will have no effect on operations.

In this scenario you could change the aircraft for a B744er in SFO or EZE and a similar thing would happen. So you can see the potential for some very long delays for pax and having the aircraft out of service.

If the management has learnt ANYTHING from the previous lot when they took on the LAME's, it allegedly cost the company $150Million in disruptions, delays, damage to the name, animosity against them etc, etc all because they didn't want to pay $5Million over a 2 year period to the LAME's. There is plenty of potential in anything. It's a matter of looking at what the end result will be if they agree to 5% or whatever as opposed to the cost of buying a new aeroplane. Weigh it up and see.

The problem is, management don't want to be seen as giving in to the worker, but are prepared to be the cause of a great deal of waste of money, and bring the company and the party seeking a pay rise into disrepute, whilst they maintain their bonuses and pay cheques.

I would like to think I can stuff up like a manager, and get a nice bonus for my efforts.

airsupport
14th Nov 2009, 00:59
Again, do NOT know how Qantas operate, just again curious after the last 2 posts.

You are speaking of possible incidents in NZ and the USA happening to Qantas aircraft.

In these cases do Qantas have CASA approved PEs they can use in these (and other) Countries? OR do the ONLY PEs that approve anything on a Qantas aircraft work for Qantas in Sydney???

I mean also ''normally'', it may make a difference while there is industrial action in place.

FMU
14th Nov 2009, 01:50
The degree engineers are primarily based in Sydney, with some also in Melbourne and Brisbane. So if an Engineering Authority is required for a damaged aircraft in LAX, it is the Sydney engineer who would authorise the EA.

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2009, 02:06
Here is a simple example.
A toilet light breaks, no parts to fix it on station, the light needs to be isolated for safety by disconnection or C/B pulled. Isolation procedure does not exist in MM or DDG, an Authority to isolate is required from the said Professional Engineer in Sydney or the A/C will sit on the ground until a spare part is flow to the station and fitted to the A/C or until day shift Monday - Friday when PE is on duty. = big delay = very unhappy customers.:{

airsupport
14th Nov 2009, 02:06
Okay, thanks.

I didn't think they would have their own Emloyee PEs based all over the World, but I thought they may use PEs (who hold a CASA Approval) working for Air NZ, United, BA etc etc...........

airsupport
14th Nov 2009, 02:12
A toilet light breaks, no parts to fix it on station, the light needs to be isolated for safety by disconnection or C/B pulled. Isolation procedure does not exist in MM or DDG, an Authority to isolate is required from the said Professional Engineer in Sydney

You can't be serious. :eek:

No wonder things get complicated at Qantas, if the LAME certifying for the aircraft needs the permission of a PE on the other side of the World to pull a C/B. :ugh:

satos
14th Nov 2009, 02:24
They are the regulations.
If it is not in the AMM you need a PE to come up with an approved procedure.

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2009, 02:40
You can't be serious. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

A LAME can pull a C/B during maintenance BUT to fly with a C/B pulled and not covered in AMM or DDG is a no no in any country, any airline ..... :}

(and I do not remember seeing using a stapler on EEL in the AMM or DDG)

airsupport
14th Nov 2009, 03:20
Now I am glad I never worked for Qantas. :rolleyes:

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2009, 05:15
I repeat, this is not just a QF thing, it SHOULD be adhered to by all reputable Airlines world wide.

QF say they have contingency plans in place, I hope they are creditable!

Lastly (well hopefully) remember back when Ansett shut down a few times not long before it's demise, their PE guys overlooked some rather important AD's which grounded the 767 fleet and say the end of the airline. Was this because of the stress of working conditions? Is QF heading this way?
QF PE's are probably too exhausted to even bother looking here and most LAME's are 100% backing them in their situation of buggery by the new team at qf.
I post is their support.

airsupport
14th Nov 2009, 06:04
You Qantas people really live in a different World. :rolleyes:

Or are you one of these PEs just stirring. ;)

I have worked with many Airlines all over the World, often with only one aircraft, and IF I had of grounded the whole Airline over a toilet light not working, well.......... :eek:

mister hilter
14th Nov 2009, 06:47
Airsupport, toilet lite may not have been the best example to use(I know it sounds trivial and I'm no sparkie, but if it's not in manual then Prof Eng req'd for EA. Else LAME is risking his licence or a fine from CASA or poss termination of employment - as was said rules is rules, and it is their train set) But if say a bird strike causes a ding in fuse/radome etc and is outside MM limits then need EA provided by Prof Eng to continue (or catering truck/cargo loader etc). Hope this helps

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2009, 07:43
Airsupport,
You Qantas people really live in a different World.

Yes, a world where aircraft maintenance is carried out in accordance with the AMM & company system of maintenance.

I have worked with many Airlines all over the World, often with only one aircraft, and IF I had of grounded the whole Airline over a toilet light not working, well.......... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

If you have not worked IAW AMM & Company System of Maint, you have been fraudulent in you certification. But I doubt you have a maintainers licence with your comments.

In an airline with 250 plus aircraft and 1,500 certifying LAME's it does not take long for billions of pax to be at the fate of the certifiers of the airline. You obviously have no idea of the compounding errors that could be introduced into a single airframe with an attitude you express above.
We do and so the toilet light example stands firm. .

airsupport
15th Nov 2009, 20:58
Airsupport, toilet lite may not have been the best example to use(I know it sounds trivial and I'm no sparkie, but if it's not in manual then Prof Eng req'd for EA. Else LAME is risking his licence or a fine from CASA or poss termination of employment - as was said rules is rules, and it is their train set) But if say a bird strike causes a ding in fuse/radome etc and is outside MM limits then need EA provided by Prof Eng to continue (or catering truck/cargo loader etc). Hope this helps

That is a completely different scenario, the damage. :eek:

I am not a sparkie/conehead either, airframes and engines, well I was, I am retired now thank God, but IF I had of grounded a whole airline (one aircraft) over a U/S toilet light i KNOW my employment would have been terminated, NO possible about it.

Of course I am (was) used to working with sensible practical people, LAMEs and Pilots, something as silly as the toilet light would (hopefully) not have been written up IF we couldn't fix it or didn't have a conehead available to clear the defect. ;)

airsupport
15th Nov 2009, 21:44
You obviously have no idea of the compounding errors that could be introduced into a single airframe with an attitude you express above.

Actually I do very much, I think it is you that doesn't understand, hopefully you are NOT an LAME, IF you are in the Industry at all, I bet you are one of these PEs. ;)

For over half my working Life as an LAME I was with Airlines with many aircraft, and yes it is different then, because you may NOT see each aircraft daily, or for a long time, and you could easily lose track of what is happening to every aircraft, I guess it is the same at Qantas.

However the instances I was quoting are where we ONLY had the one aircraft to look after (the whole Airline), and usually in very remote parts of the World, and usually ONLY myself and one Avionics LAME looking after the aircraft, so we knew everything that was going on with the aircraft, and ANY faults whether logged or not. A lot of the time I actually flew around with it too, so even IF I didn't care about the safety of the Pax and Flight Crew (which I DID), I wasn't going to risk my Life.

Socket
15th Nov 2009, 22:05
You werent willing to risk your life airsupport but you were more than willing to bend, ignore and break the law. I for one am glad you have retired.

Your attitude to the rules is the reason so many of these one aircraft "airlines" get banned from flying in european airspace. Every time you duck a rule you line up a hole in the swiss cheese.

blow.n.gasket
15th Nov 2009, 22:38
Qantas' version of the Risk Model Swiss cheese analogy is now almost down to 1 slice of mouldy old cheese almost gnawed away to nothing by the "rats".

Executive Bonus' before
Pofitability before
Safety before
Schedule!

The New Qantas Corporate Mission Statement!:ooh:

airsupport
15th Nov 2009, 22:53
You werent willing to risk your life airsupport but you were more than willing to bend, ignore and break the law. I for one am glad you have retired.

Your attitude to the rules is the reason so many of these one aircraft "airlines" get banned from flying in european airspace. Every time you duck a rule you line up a hole in the swiss cheese.

I wish some of you Children would learn to read. :rolleyes:

I am very glad I am retired too, however during my 40 something years in the Industry I never ever broke any Laws, and I am very proud of the fact that on all these contracts we never had ANY incidents or accidents and only 1 or 2 unavoidable mechanical delays. :ok:

Certainly NOT banned, in fact those Airlines had a better safety record while we were there than dare I say it even Qantas, thank you. ;)

blow.n.gasket
15th Nov 2009, 23:17
I propose an honary Sky God title be awarded to Airsupport for his 40+ yrs of upstanding service to the airline industry.
will any other P-Pruner second my proposal?:ok:

airsupport
15th Nov 2009, 23:24
I propose an honary Sky God title be awarded to Airsupport for his 40+ yrs of upstanding service to the airline industry.
will any other P-Pruner second my proposal?

Thank you. :ok:

Although very much deserved, I must decline the honour, as I was just doing my job that I was being paid to do all that time, keeping the aircraft safe #1, and on time IF possible #2.

Some people here, if they are even real Airline people, seem to do everything they can to delay aircraft and inconvenience their Company and the paying Passengers. :eek:

Short_Circuit
16th Nov 2009, 03:22
something as silly as the toilet light would (hopefully) not have been written up IF we couldn't fix it or didn't have a conehead available to clear the defect
so, in your 40 years you have never seen a Lt socket or tombstone burn requiring electrical isolation. :hmm:
and ANY faults whether logged or not
Right .... just ignore it and let it burn.

Socket
16th Nov 2009, 03:44
Although very much deserved, I must decline the honour

How very noble of you.:D

I can see that as well as the importance of following the rules, sarcasm is beyond you too.:rolleyes:

blow.n.gasket, I will nominate him for two awards, the Ten Foot Spanner (biggest tool) and the Golden Door Opening Implement.:yuk:

airsupport
16th Nov 2009, 03:51
I hope you two are both with Qantas, IF you are even in the Industry, they deserve you. :ok:

No wonder the Industry is in such a mess. :(

Wod
16th Nov 2009, 06:49
Meanwhile, back in the real world, how goes the negotiation?

If we all take a deep breath, this is probably a bog standard EBA negotiation. Leave the negotiators be and don't believe 80% of your own propoganda would be my advice.

Incidentally, it's also PE who do evaluations on manufacturers' proposals and start the new type selection process.:E

Short_Circuit
16th Nov 2009, 08:13
Thanks Wod, quite correct, it's back to the thread, but I do not see any of the PE posting at all. :ok:

Deleted


deleted


deleted

Why did I bother !!!

airsupport
16th Nov 2009, 09:57
P.S. I do take offence at cowboys signing out "roman candles" and I would imagine any pilot / LAME / Pax would also.

I take it that IF you guys are even in the Industry, you are PEs or maybe AMEs, PLEASE tell me you are NOT LAMEs, unless maybe you are in heavy maintenance/overhaul and have NO idea at all about how things work in the real World. :(

The operations I was talking about all over the World were only so successful BECAUSE of the cooperation and flexibility of ALL involved, especially the LAMEs and the Pilots. :ok:

Another great trip I had about 21 years ago was a ferry flight from Melbourne through to England with 3 Captains, (no pax though of course), a smaller aircraft and took some 10 days. Had to do routine basic maintenance on the aircraft daily and a check around half way, funny thing was we never had even one defect in the logs all that way until on descent on the final leg, then I had to write up some 18 defects. ;)

IF you guys were there it wouldn't have got out of Australia. :rolleyes:

Jet-A-One
16th Nov 2009, 10:34
Hey airsupport. In your "40 something years in the Industry" did you ever find the golden rivet?

novice110
16th Nov 2009, 11:02
'Short Circuit' - thanks for the example it was kind of what I was getting at earlier.

After finally re-reading this thread it's clear that some people are coming at this issue with a bit of a 'cowboy' GA attitude. Easy to get away with when operating low volume private ops, I would argue that it's a different story for HC RPT...

Good luck to the PE's, some of us see your value!

airsupport
16th Nov 2009, 18:49
As I said before I am hoping that most of you, judging by your posts, are PEs with lots of University Qualifications but NO practical experience OR AMEs/LAMEs in a heavy maintenance environment. ;)

PLEASE PLEASE tell me that none of you are LAMEs on Line Maintenance with high capacity aircraft. :eek:

rammel
16th Nov 2009, 19:21
Quite a lot of PE's have not come straight from uni with no experience. A lot I know of have started off by doing an apprenticeship, then a few years later getting a scholarship from QF to do the uni degree course. Then aside from the degree they also do LAME courses.

mahatmacoat
16th Nov 2009, 19:54
I am very glad I am retired too, however during my 40 something years in the Industry I never ever broke any Laws,

Another great trip I had about 21 years ago was a ferry flight from Melbourne through to England with 3 Captains, (no pax though of course), a smaller aircraft and took some 10 days. Had to do routine basic maintenance on the aircraft daily and a check around half way, funny thing was we never had even one defect in the logs all that way until on descent on the final leg, then I had to write up some 18 defects.

Sounds like the same law was broken 18 times here.

airsupport
16th Nov 2009, 21:54
Quite a lot of PE's have not come straight from uni with no experience. A lot I know of have started off by doing an apprenticeship, then a few years later getting a scholarship from QF to do the uni degree course. Then aside from the degree they also do LAME courses.

Yes, that is like the ones I have met, plenty of courses and training but NO practical hands on experience on the line or at outports, that is obvious from many of the posts here. ;)

airsupport
16th Nov 2009, 22:01
Sounds like the same law was broken 18 times here.

Yet another person who has NO idea of the real World. :ugh:

As I said it was me and THREE CAPTAINS, now if ALL 3 CAPTAINS were happy to continue on without logging any defects, you really expect ME to over rule all of them and write up a defect that all of them (and I) are not worried about? :ugh:

One of our overnight stops on that trip was New Delhi, I should have got you to come out and fix it. ;)

ampclamp
16th Nov 2009, 23:22
airsupport, I've been around nearly as long as you and have in the past seen and done things as you say.Toilet light yes bad example but thats how it is NOW.
The world has moved on, rules and compliance are now much tougher.
Deviation from the amm is not tolerated.The company will not thank you for breaking their or CASA's regs and will hang you out to dry when you are caught .
Yes it still happens but much less and people are less inclined to do so.

You cannot so much as drop one in your daks without a MM reference.

You don't have to like it but that is a fact and it is not just qantas.

anyway, no delays in YSSY that I've heard of from the degreed engineers dispute.

airsupport
17th Nov 2009, 00:19
airsupport, I've been around nearly as long as you and have in the past seen and done things as you say.Toilet light yes bad example but thats how it is NOW.
The world has moved on, rules and compliance are now much tougher.
Deviation from the amm is not tolerated.The company will not thank you for breaking their or CASA's regs and will hang you out to dry when you are caught .
Yes it still happens but much less and people are less inclined to do so.

You cannot so much as drop one in your daks without a MM reference.

You don't have to like it but that is a fact and it is not just qantas.


Firstly, thank you for a sensible and polite reply. :ok:

You seem to know what you are talking about, so I will take your word for it, as I said I retired a few years ago now, just cannot believe it is so stupid now, I was hoping it was just a Qantas thing, but by what you say maybe not. :(

So glad it was not like this years ago, I would have spent half of my working life stuck in some awful parts of the World for no sensible reason instead of flying on safely. :(

I will keep out of it now, good luck to you all, you will need it. :ok: