PDA

View Full Version : Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]

Autobrakes4
19th Dec 2011, 04:34
Bye bye QF local engineering in a few years time. What a sell out. :O

Clipped
19th Dec 2011, 05:16
AB4

ALAEA members/Exec cannot determine the strategic path of the airline, therefore, we got the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

But, you must be just so much smarter.

Perhaps you could discuss, in hindsight, how you would have negotiated with these clowns, and the agreement terms you would have sought?

There was no sell out, not by a long shot. If that was the case, the majority of members would have voiced those concerns at the recent meetings.

TIMA9X
19th Dec 2011, 05:34
RePd6arG6zQ

What a sell outagain I quote QF94
we got what can be considered the best deal under the circumstances we were placed. That is between the QF board and the government.what SP has done, really is a good result, and the Qantas board haven't come out of this smelling like roses, in fact they have damaged the brand and have placed themselves in a position where they will be under huge pressure to perform which I doubt they have the capacity to do so. I believe LC will find 2012 tough to convince the institutional shareholders otherwise, and a very real chance we will see the end of him... (now wouldn't that be a nice early xmas present)

by denabol; Take a look at the share price while this has been going onsays it all...., in other words, 2011 has proved to be a horror year for this chairman and his board, the media are on to them, watch this space.

airsupport
19th Dec 2011, 06:26
Ultimately there are limits on what we can do industrially.

Keeping a viable industry in Australia is mostly a political decision.

True, and true. :ok:

As I think I posted some time ago, way back before a lot of you were in the Industry, maybe even born ;), back in the 1960s when I was an Apprentice, Ansett had arranged for one of our Carvairs, the first of many Aircraft, to ferry to Hong Kong to undergo Overhaul, this was despite Ansett having very extensive Overhaul facilities in Melbourne, a move designed mainly to save money.

In the end just the one Carvair went, NO others, and it was NOT due to any Industrial action, the Australian Government of the day stepped in and blocked it citing National Security, they wanted all this knowledge and expertise to remain in Australia in case of any National Emergencies or Wars etc.

Surely there would be just as good a case for this now, even more so with all the conflicts throughout the World, and of course the terrorism since 9/11.

Now the EBA is settled, NO need for any Industrial action by the ALAEA against Qantas directly, but what about pushing the Government and friends in the Labor Party to do this same thing, convince Qantas to keep all this expertise and knowledge IN Australia to protect our National Interest. :ok:

QF94
19th Dec 2011, 06:45
Bye bye QF local engineering in a few years time. What a sell out.

AB4, I agree with the loss of local engineering jobs in a few years time, but I don't believe it was a sell out.

The loss of engineering jobs was unfortunately inevitable due to the board having no intention of upgrading maintenance facilities in Australia for new generation aircraft after the phasing out of the current fleet of 747's and 767's. Was there ever an intention to maintain 380's in Australia outside of their weekly checks? Not a chance! Was there the intention to maintain the 787's in Australia, even after the alleged first 15 went to J*? Not a chance, and even less now that QANTAS won't be getting them at all.

As for the sell out, as cliched as this sounds and as I mentioned before, this is as good as we were going to get. End of story. The ALAEA knew that when they commenced their roadshows and the company had pretty well agreed to it at the time.

If you knew any more than what was proposed, what would have been a better solution? Keep fighting for a job security clause that was not binding?

Do we have job security for the next 3 years? No we don't. Our functions are guaranteed, but they will slowly diminish with the phasing out of the abovementioned aircraft types, and this will commence with the retiring of four 747's by March/April 2012. Once they're phased out, so are our functions along with the aircraft. This timing will coincide with the "new" Sydney Airport which features no QANTAS Jet Base, but a joint QANTAS/One World Domestic/International terminal around 2015.

bandit2
19th Dec 2011, 08:36
Well done ALAEA, thanks for your efforts. I think we got a decent deal & we gave those idiots a hiding. Management made fools of themselves, with the lies & BS. AJ, LC & the entire Board showed their attitude towards ALL unions.
I believe we've learnt alot about the mindset of these embiciles running the company also. It's a shame we haven't heard from the trolls lately aswell. I luv you guys!
ALAEA have a good Xmas & safe New Year.

Ngineer
19th Dec 2011, 09:19
Maybe we got screwed over by management and the labor party, but at least the the Australian public are now aware of the a$$clowns running the show (or at least those who were not already aware).

Thats a huge win in my books. Well done to the ALAEA team.:ok:

QF94
19th Dec 2011, 09:30
but at least the the Australian public are now aware of the a$$clowns running the show (or at least those who were not already aware).

In all seriousness, do you think the public really cares how things are run? So long as travel plans are not disrupted and the fares are cheap enough (i.e. J* prices on a QANTAS full-service flight) they don't give a toss.

When was there last a public outcry at the QF management? When they grounded the airline. Since then, they've come back to fly again as there will be no more disruptions to flights due to industrial action by either side.

What about what the major investors think? It doesn't really matter. The airline will still fly whether the shares are at $6.00 or at $0.50. Those major shareholders won't dump their shares at $0.50 and will hold on to them till they can at least get their money back or they will want a change of management.

Ngineer
19th Dec 2011, 09:44
The war is not over yet. It has only just started.

Jethro Gibbs
19th Dec 2011, 09:53
but at least the the Australian public are now aware of the a$$clowns running the show (or at least those who were not already aware).


The Public could not care less as long as the aircraft gets from a to b on time that's it.

Sunfish
19th Dec 2011, 09:53
The stupidity is that Qantas is at least Five years out of phase.

By the time Qantas has completed its outsourcing, Major international airlines will be bringing their maintenance back in house.

Watch what happens when the Australian dollar is around 0.75 cents.

Long Bay Mauler
19th Dec 2011, 10:18
Well done SP, Wookie, and the Exec team. A good result given the circumstances.

Even though the PIA was prematurely cutoff, it still showed we are a force to reckoned with. Unlike other unions, we actually flexed our muscles, and delivered a few black eyes, and raised a few blood pressures.

Maybe we won't be able to do this sort of action again, but at least we did have a go.

Once again, well done all.:D::D:D:D:ok::ok::ok::ok:

another superlame
19th Dec 2011, 10:21
Can we get this thread up too 3000 replies?

QF94
19th Dec 2011, 10:57
By the time Qantas has completed its outsourcing, Major international airlines will be bringing their maintenance back in house.

Nothing new there. BA did this many years ago when they established their maintenance hangars in Cardiff as a separate entity, British Airways Engineering. It came back inhouse within a reasonably short period of time.

The unfortunate problem with QANTAS management (and it has been a problem for quite a while now) is that they believe they are smarter than their counterparts and won't make the mistakes they make. None of their counterparts grounded their own airline in spite of their workers or the travelling public.

unseen
19th Dec 2011, 11:54
Ngineer - continuing industrial action are we?

Worrals in the wilds
19th Dec 2011, 12:19
None of their counterparts grounded their own airline in spite of their workers or the travelling public. And the brand damage is absolute. IME, mention Qantas in a group of non aviation people and you'll get a range of reactions from aren't they bastards to damn those Unions, but none of the comments refer to great flights, excellent value or fun destinations. It's all about the WTF:eek:coupled with the lousy flight to wherever and isn't that AJ/LC/Union Heavy dismal :ouch:(sorry Fed Sec, but truth in reporting, and that was only a small group of cucumber sandwich eaters :\). My 2011 Christmas parties experience, anyway.

Being Australia The Land of the BBQ fuelled 'what my mate from the pub's sister who works with a cousin of so and so's whose best friend said' discussion, then the conspiracy theories start, and before you know it the Qantas Board has aliens on ice and wants to take over Westpac and run it as an airline so they can float it on the Korean stock exchange. :eek:

Either way, last Christmas Qantas were generally regarded fondly as all Australian heroes (unless you called in here between shopping trips:cool:)...this Christmas they're a key discussion point between dropped snags and Sav Blancs.

Next Christmas, who knows what they'll be? Successful companies value their brands. Look at the angst from the cigarette manufacturers about threats to their trademarks. They value their pretty packaging with the bright colours enough to fund High Court challenges because they realise how much branding is worth. Of course, when you sell a product that kills approximately 50% of its users you have to be damned careful with your marketing. :E Companies like Golden Circle and GMH continue to push the Australian made illusion because they know what an allegedly true-blue brand is worth, and they know that most consumers don't read the made-from-1%-local-and-99%-imported ingredients small print. It's what separates your crappy product from the other 400 crappy products on the market that do exactly the same thing. That's why most sane companies treasure their brand, its reputation and its alleged dinky di credentials, even when the actual credentials start looking a bit shaky under scrutiny.

In contrast, the Qantas Board seem to value their brand as much as Christopher Skase famously regarded his Australian citizenship; like a pair of smelly socks. His wife lived to regret that statement when applying for her citizenship back and maybe the Qantas Board will live to regret their trashing of the brand.

Maybe not though, they'll probably all have blown through with generous severance packages and be ruining other companies by the time the sludge settles.

All in the interests of the shareholder, you understand. Apparently it's all about the shareholder. :yuk: What are they worth again? Who actually owns them? That's right, mates of the board. What's round, has teeth and bites? A vicious circle...:}

Merry Christmas y'all, especially the ALAEA, and if you're looking for a good under-tree gift, this book is a good one...bit lefty, but interesting, particularly for any other working bogans who have posted on here saying 'that's a bit off' when confronted with the shareholder value pundits who are so vocal on Qantas threads. I'm not a Cambridge professor, but this guy is, and a lot of this book sounds very familiar. :8
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism: Amazon.co.uk: Ha-Joon Chang: Books


[/SIZE]

Toolpants
19th Dec 2011, 13:29
Thanks SP and all the Exec team. You guys are definitely the best guys we’ve had running the union ever.

As for unseen's comment- Ngineer - continuing industrial action are we?

Ngineer never said he was continuing industrial action.

Two things do come to mind though.
1. The “army of one”.
2. Branson’s quote “look after your staff and the rest takes care of itself."

I think productivity and profits will be down next FY.

I know quite a few people switched to Virgin and will not be back to QF thanks to AJ and LC. The Board will be wondering where all the profits went. What a bunch of fools they are.

Autobrakes4
19th Dec 2011, 17:58
Seriously though, you have achieved nothing more than what could have been got 2 years ago without all the agro. AJ would have been doing cartwheels in his office when he found out the engineers had caved in.

But then again if you are all happy, then good result.

Jet-A-One
19th Dec 2011, 19:29
Maybe we should have worn red ties...:}

Ngineer
19th Dec 2011, 20:36
The Public could not care less as long as the aircraft gets from a to b on time that's it.

If you speak to the Aussie public then you may find out that this is not the case. This is why the company has failed, ie; they do not listen to the customer, they would rather dictate to them. I could go on and on about the topic, but I wont.

Jethro, you should so be a QF manager with and attitude like that!!

ampclamp
19th Dec 2011, 21:25
To be fair to JG ngineer, there are plenty of people who dont care about anything but getting there on time cheaply. The thought of safety, the board's abilities or how they act with their employees lasts as long as yesteday's newspaper headlines.

A/Brakes 4 , are you ok? Been on Mars for 2 years? :suspect:

2 years ago there was no offer, zero. No pay rise, maint on demand: not negotiable, unlimited A licenses just to mention a few. Sounds like someone trying to re write history. Caving in, that is so funny.:D

Clipped
19th Dec 2011, 21:53
Have been hearing that the QE negotiating team, GH and KC, existence at QF may be short lived.

Harris has been a common denominator in 2008 and 2011 and has been a dismal failure in each case. He has failed as a leader and negotiator, so I say, good riddance. If he falls I imagine his posse of merry men will fall too.

QF94
19th Dec 2011, 23:07
Have been hearing that the QE negotiating team, GH and KC, existence at QF may be short lived.

Harris has been a common denominator in 2008 and 2011 and has been a dismal failure in each case. He has failed as a leader and negotiator, so I say, good riddance. If he falls I imagine his posse of merry men will fall too.

Let's not get the Harris's mixed up. Murray was the first in 2008. After the clean out and removal of the entire engineering management from Cox down to ops managers, we now have the current regime. Which have proven to be no different. Same game, different players.

TIMA9X
20th Dec 2011, 01:54
The federal government has asked a former federal court judge, an academic and a Reserve Bank board member to review the Fair Work Act.
Terms of reference for the review were released by Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten in Melbourne on Tuesday.
The review will be conducted by RBA board member John Edwards, Justice Michael Moore and legal and workplace relations academic Ron McCallum.


"They bring diverse experience and skills in working on workplace relations and economic matters in Australia," Mr Shorten told reporters, adding the trio had the ability to bring a new perspective to the debate.
He said the conservative side of politics had "broken" the workplace relations system by introducing Work Choices.
The minister, who took over the workplace relations portfolio last week, said the government believed Labor's replacement system was working well.
"But there is always room for improvement," he said.
Fair Work Act review details unveiled (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/fair-work-act-review-details-unveiled-20111220-1p39r.html)
Yeah, a admission of guilt.....

These guys in Canberra amaze me....

Slim Dog
20th Dec 2011, 02:33
So when do you think the EA will officially be rubber stamped?

QF94
20th Dec 2011, 02:52
So when do you think the EA will officially be rubber stamped?

Any time soon. What's the rush? We've gone a year with nothing, what's another week or so? Either way, back pay will come, as will the other additions.

Kick back, relax and enjoy the Festive Season.

buttmonkey1
20th Dec 2011, 03:06
i'm wondering what mr nasty means by this statement...
arrangements for the transition to retirement for licensed engineers

was job sharing or some such mentioned?
is he talking about the lame on demand?
is he getting us ready for vr if we want it?

Syd eng
20th Dec 2011, 03:33
Job Sharing, Steve explained it as if 2 guys share and do 3 months each alternately. he did mention there are still some things to work out with it too.

QF94
20th Dec 2011, 03:36
i'm wondering what mr nasty means by this statement...
arrangements for the transition to retirement for licensed engineers

was job sharing or some such mentioned?
is he talking about the lame on demand?
is he getting us ready for vr if we want it?

BM1, did you go to any of the meetings while they were on?

Job sharing was mentioned for those in their later years wanting to wind down before retiring, or maybe even going part-time because they can't keep up with the full-time pace, but want to share their expertise with others and stay in the industry a while.

VR is well and truly on the cards and a reality. With the reitirng of four 747's next year and some of the 767's going also, this is a way out for those wanting to go also. VR is that. Voluntary.

buttmonkey1
20th Dec 2011, 03:53
oops, must've missed that part, lol.
well, all is good, well done alaea exec.
time to get 2 cartons of crownies for $85
and start drinking 'em.

aveng
20th Dec 2011, 04:11
Cheers Buttmonkey1 - but seriously, can't you afford better beer with your new found wealth:ok:

Jethro Gibbs
20th Dec 2011, 04:51
Now Bill Shorten is going to look at the system . Him and his mob are hopeless.:ugh:

ampclamp
20th Dec 2011, 07:59
Transition to retirement sounds like a great idea. Yes it is a job share situation from what I heard at the meetings .

With an aging LAME work force it will be a good way to keep those skills in the industry and keep an income ticking over without killing yourself or driving the missus nuts by being at home all the time.

I look fwd to details for future reference.

airsupport
20th Dec 2011, 08:13
Transition to retirement sounds like a great idea. Yes it is a job share situation from what I heard at the meetings .

With an aging LAME work force it will be a good way to keep those skills in the industry and keep an income ticking over without killing yourself or driving the missus nuts by being at home all the time.

It is a great idea, and for what it is worth, I think if you have the opportunity to do that before you retire you should :ok: and not just to avoid the Missus. ;)

I did not have that choice, but I will never forget as a youngish LAME some 30 odd years ago seeing so many LAMEs who had been doing it all their working lives, especially still on shift work until retirement, retire and then only live a short time longer, several only a week or two, just such a dramatic lifestyle change. :(

IF you can do it you should. :ok:

SpannerTwister
20th Dec 2011, 12:46
Sounds like a great option, BUT of all the things that you'd need to consider, your superannuation would have to be THE most important !

Some divisions base your payout on the average of your last xx years salary, and you might find that you've been contributing for 30 - 40 years at (say) a rate based on currently earning $100,000 pa, and three years later your payout is based on you earning $50,000 pa....AFTER 27 - 37 years contributing at a payout rate based on you earning $100,000 pa.

ST

airsupport
20th Dec 2011, 18:20
Okay, I must admit I had not thought of that, probably because when I retired I had no super at all.

It is still a great idea though, especially IF you could find some way around that.

Mind you money/super is not everything, IF those LAMEs I mentioned before had known that they would retire and in some cases not even get to spend a cent of their super before they were off checking aircraft in Heaven then they may thought so too. :(

Propstop
20th Dec 2011, 18:51
Mind you money/super is not everything, IF those LAMEs I mentioned before had known that they would retire and in some cases not even get to spend a cent of their super before they were off checking aircraft in Heaven then they may thought so too.


Airsupport.
You are presumptious here....LAME'S go to heaven????
Be more fun downstairs with your mates and Old Nick.

airsupport
20th Dec 2011, 19:00
No, I was trying to be kind, it is Christmas time after all. ;)

ampclamp
20th Dec 2011, 23:02
Spanner twister, No doubt those designing the scheme could work around it.
They must!

Div 2 and 3 are the ones I think most would be concerned about with the final average salary calculations.

Maybe they would take the final 3 years prior to TTR? After that super may revert to an accumulation scheme or a grossed up portion as if you were working a full year?

Whatever way it goes it needs to be attractive to the company in maintaining the skills and those wishing to retire "slowly" but not destroy the defined benefit many will be relying on.

Short_Circuit
21st Dec 2011, 01:33
Merry Christmas to the 555,223 viewers of our EBA stoush with qantars.

Bet you have learned a thing or two along our journey.

Next one will start late 2013. See ya then. :}

Silverado
21st Dec 2011, 03:45
Div 3 final average salary, is the best 3 consecutive years in the last ten.

SpannerTwister
21st Dec 2011, 05:02
Spanner twister, No doubt those designing the scheme could work around it.
You would certainly hope so !

Maybe they would take the final 3 years prior to TTR? After that super may revert to an accumulation scheme or a grossed up portion as if you were working a full year?
A couple of good ideas there to get the minds thinking.

I agree that this shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle, and if it can be successfully negotiated then some sort of TTR scheme could indeed be attractive for some of the "older" guys.

ST

Captain Gidday
21st Dec 2011, 07:30
Merry Christmas to the 555,223 viewers of our EBA stoush with qantars.
555 LAMEs each looking 1000 times?

MR WOBBLES
21st Dec 2011, 08:07
what about the other 223 Captain G

Captain Gidday
21st Dec 2011, 08:29
Dunno. Not everybody cares?
My personal opinion, shared by all the pilots I know, is you guys are worth a hell of a lot more, but you already know you are. I hope when VR comes along you all take it, particularly those not yet 55 for whom a TTR Pension is not available, and you find an employer and perhaps even a new industry where your contribution is properly valued. [I'll be leaving the industry soon myself and will then only have a passing interest looking back from the RV at the inevitable outcome, rather than a deeply personal interest from the LHS]. **Passing thought, with the number of baby boomers shortly retiring, perhaps you should be looking for a job with Winnebago or Jayco.

Back to TTR Pensions -there are a few pilots who've reached 55 already working under TTR conditions. Over our way, in longhaul it's called a Flexible Line and has been around for a few years now in the Longhaul Pilot's EBA. There's a Shorthaul EBA version as well. Might serve as a rough template for you guys. Those doing it are pretty happy chappies, by all reports. More time to develop other interests before jumping out completely.

As for VR, the Longhaul Pilots EBA still has the redundancy conditions for Flight Engineers written into it, although there have not been any Flight Engineers for a few years now, of course. That would be an excellent starting point for any VR discussions to come.

Tuner 2
21st Dec 2011, 08:43
There's a Shorthaul EBA version as well

Do you mean short haul pilots' agreement? If so, which part?

Captain Gidday
21st Dec 2011, 09:27
Sorry, I've never worked under the Shorthaul Agreement but was told they had a job sharing arrangement. Apart from a provision for Carer's Lines, I can't see anything about it in the current Shorthaul EBA.
I guess on the 737 you just work flat out till you drop, then?

FlexibleResponse
21st Dec 2011, 11:02
Very well done guys, especially to Steve.

Just remember that the management chaps will come back and have another go at you again...and probably sooner than you think.

Consider taking up part-time study towards a mining related engineering degree to tin-plate your ar$e for the inevitable next round of talks.

QF94
21st Dec 2011, 11:06
Just remember that the management chaps will come back and have another go at you again...and probably sooner than you think.


No they won't. We're great mates now. We all got a Christmas pen from our management. All is well and we're moving forward to a prosperous 2012.

PIOT Bord
22nd Dec 2011, 23:30
Thank you for the outcome achieved, Steve, Exec, and staff.

Dealing with a CEO and Board happy to destroy Qantas so as to keep total control over who's snouts are in the trough, who prefer to fight employees than work with them (knowledge and experience are the enemy - think B777, think major fleet renewal commitment to 2 new types still on a drawing board), and a Government not willing to fight for Aussie jobs, made it an extremely tough ask.

From my perspective, you stayed true to your core values with a new EA that has something for everyone and no one was sold out for sectional interests. The ALAEA has been further strengthened by your leadership.

Ngineer
23rd Dec 2011, 01:44
We all got a Christmas pen from our management.

Be sure to put it to good use.:ok:

Merry Christmas.

Ticking Timebomb
24th Dec 2011, 04:08
re : Maybe we got screwed over by management and the labor party, but at least the the Australian public are now aware of the a$$clowns running the show (or at least those who were not already aware).

And they will be aware again when LAME haters nastyswine and Harris try to introduce low cost carrier maintenance practices into Qantas.

I had a sweet conversation with my mother in law who was fully supportive of Qantas' tactics during the dispute and works in corporate at Westpac.

When I asked her would you be happy to get on an aircraft which hasn't been inspected by an engineer before flight she thought I was off my tree.
"As if thats what Qantas management want to do" she said as if I was stupid.

Ahh the funs just beginning really. Another public relations disaster sitting on Qantas' doorstep.

Managers Perspective
25th Dec 2011, 18:36
I think I have actually "heard it all now"........

Management by mother in law, that's definately goint to keep QANTAS in the market.

MP

33 Disengage
28th Dec 2011, 17:36
Very well done guys, especially to Steve.It got ugly, and we didn't achieve all goals set, but we have more members now than when we started, and we live to fight for maintenance standards / jobs for the future.
Just remember that the management chaps will come back and have another go at you again...and probably sooner than you think.
True, but even the doubters saw the value of the strength of the ALAEA. No one is going to survive if this management got 'free reign'.

The Black Panther
28th Dec 2011, 20:34
So where do we stand with M-O-D ?

Is it still alive and can be introduced by the company at their choice?

Millet Fanger
28th Dec 2011, 20:50
So where do we stand with M-O-D ?As per the agreement, presently before FWA, clause 11 basically states that LAMEs retain all existing job functions. Qantas have signed off on it, it's just a matter of whether you trust QF management.

The Black Panther
28th Dec 2011, 21:08
As per the agreement, presently before FWA, clause 11 basically states that LAMEs retain all existing job functions. Qantas have signed off on it, it's just a matter of whether you trust QF management. Yes, we've discussed this one locally, however, this statement doesn't secure the frequency of our job functions. Currently every transit, but invoking the current policy on several type transit checks sees this frequency reduced to once a day.

As usual the engineering heads of state are as clear as mud and as trustworthy as Lucifer.

buttmonkey1
28th Dec 2011, 23:07
that old clause of lames maintaining their existing job functions might
be still in there, but, read the fine print... subject to blah, blah, some
sort of factors affecting the company?
then the commitment of lames to co-operate on issues to improve efficiency?
sp might explain it better, of course he could, but i think were screwed
and besides many at the coal face are thinking bring it on, get on with it
and plenty are sweating on the numbers required and the vr's to flow on from it.
these clauses mean about as much as the one where the lames and company will
start getting other operators contracts back on the int'l ramp.

QF94
28th Dec 2011, 23:29
Quote:
As per the agreement, presently before FWA, clause 11 basically states that LAMEs retain all existing job functions. Qantas have signed off on it, it's just a matter of whether you trust QF management.
Yes, we've discussed this one locally, however, this statement doesn't secure the frequency of our job functions. Currently every transit, but invoking the current policy on several type transit checks sees this frequency reduced to once a day.

As usual the engineering heads of state are as clear as mud and as trustworthy as Lucifer.

The LAME functions will remain for as long as the "classic" 737, 767 and now aging 744's remain in the fleet. Once these guys are gone, so are the LAME functions as we know them.

Ngineer
28th Dec 2011, 23:44
So where do we stand with M-O-D ?


For starters, lets refer to this work practice for what it actually is, ie:"we don't want to fix or even look at anything until it completely sh!ts itself".

I think the term M-O-D was a management derived term that was thought up to gloss over this cheap and nasty practice, and a term I refuse to use.

How about 'maintenance on destruction'??

worktorule
29th Dec 2011, 00:35
The LAME functions will remain for as long as the "classic" 737, 767 and now aging 744's remain in the fleet. Once these guys are gone, so are the LAME functions as we know them.

Surely arriving and departing aircraft are existing job functions. I don't see anyone else doing it on a380's or 738's.

QF94
29th Dec 2011, 04:17
The LAME functions will remain for as long as the "classic" 737, 767 and now aging 744's remain in the fleet. Once these guys are gone, so are the LAME functions as we know them.

Surely arriving and departing aircraft are existing job functions. I don't see anyone else doing it on a380's or 738's.

worktorule, heard of M.O.D. (Maintenance on Demand)? J* and Virgin use it domestically. No need for a LAME to arrive or depart an aircraft. Only need to come out when there is a problem. Virgin Australia internationally don't have their own LAME's.

All the new generation aircraft "don't need" LAME's to arrive or depart them.

Wait for the all new "futuristic" airport in Sydney in the coming years. QANTAS and its subsidiaries and One World partners will operate from what is now Domestic and where the hangars are and all others will operate from what is now the international terminal.

another superlame
29th Dec 2011, 06:35
I think the Virgin domestic system is the best of both worlds, they use a mixed crew of AMEs and LAMEs. They both do the turnarounds, if the arriving aircraft for an AME comes in with a defect then he swaps with a LAME.
The LAME fixes the aircraft and departs it, the AME departs the LAMEs original a/c.
This way the aircraft gets a look over by a set of trained eyes, rather than a non-interested bagchucker. And the company gets it savings by having more AMEs doing turnarounds.

QF94
29th Dec 2011, 07:09
I think the Virgin domestic system is the best of both worlds, they use a mixed crew of AMEs and LAMEs. They both do the turnarounds, if the arriving aircraft for an AME comes in with a defect then he swaps with a LAME.
The LAME fixes the aircraft and departs it, the AME departs the LAMEs original a/c.
This way the aircraft gets a look over by a set of trained eyes, rather than a non-interested bagchucker. And the company gets it savings by having more AMEs doing turnarounds.

Great in theory, but when you have a management as uninterested as the bag chuckers, the cheapest denomination always wins out. i.e. bag chucker who doesn't need trained eyes, so he/she won't find anything. Commonsense isn't so common in QANTAS management. They're more interested in saving common cents.

amos2
29th Dec 2011, 07:47
Captain Gidday is having you lot on!...

...and jerking your chain...

...haven't you twigged to that yet?!

listentome
29th Dec 2011, 07:53
....you guys do realise there is actually a whole world outside of Australia that fly aircraft too?
If you weren't so hung up fighting for something that simply isnt necassary, you might actually move forward and adapt to an industry that has actually progressed more than you would like to admit.
Yep, this thread might be about the QF lame negotiations, but there are a whole lot of very experienced lames working for other airlines in Australia and around the world reading this thread and thinking.........wake up

ampclamp
29th Dec 2011, 08:11
Progressed? Changed yes but not progressed. 'They' can think what they like. The lowering of standards is never good no matter what the norm elsewhere is. It is lowering standards to suit the airline operators. I will not be convinced that less numbers of qualified eyes on the job improves or maintains a certain level of safety.

QF94
29th Dec 2011, 08:18
....you guys do realise there is actually a whole world outside of Australia that fly aircraft too?
If you weren't so hung up fighting for something that simply isnt necassary, you might actually move forward and adapt to an industry that has actually progressed more than you would like to admit.
Yep, this thread might be about the QF lame negotiations, but there are a whole lot of very experienced lames working for other airlines in Australia and around the world reading this thread and thinking.........wake up

We do realise there is a whole world outside of Australia that fly aircraft. We fly there and they fly here. We're just not interested in what others are doing around the world. We're here in Australia, paying Australian rates for our standards of living, so we want to be able to earn Australian remuneration for our jobs.

Does waking up mean dropping standards and accepting lower pay for the privelage? If that's progress, then I and many others in Australia will gladly stay behind and watch the others (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and even the USA) fall in front of us.

listentome
29th Dec 2011, 12:58
Your not lowering standards at all, just meeting them. Lowering them would mean not completing the type certificated MPD or the state regulators rules. In that case, you would be increasing risk and breaching known standards of safety. Don't kid yourself that providing over and above the "standard" provides any increase in perceived safety. There is no minimum or maximum, just the required inspections. Ask yourself, why has the world moved from a max single engine diversion time of 60 mins to now in excess of 300? It's not because of a lame walk around.
Ok, I'll bite...I'm a LAME with five types working at QF. I take great pride in my work and you will find one of the biggest advocates for both aviation safety and our trade. I have worked in many country's and seen far better and far worse, but I will tell you this, we and I mean we must all realise that the game has changed. You either move with it, or be left behind. Not by lowering standards but by being better at what you do.

airsupport
29th Dec 2011, 18:35
Not this rubbish again. :rolleyes:

I was a CASA Licenced LAME for some 40 years though never with QF, now retired, worked all over the World, saw first hand the standards in many many Countries including the USA, and it annoys me when people suggest that the standards in Australia, and of Australian LAMEs Worldwide, should be dragged down from the highest in the World to some lowest common standard. :mad:

I am already so disappointed that CASA have lowered the Licence standards to that of Bananas in Pyjamas (B1 and B2) from the high standards we had for decades, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT allow the standards to sink any lower towards World's worst. :mad:

This includes doing all you can to prevent doing away with LAME preflights or having LAMEless tarmacs for the sake of ALL who fly, thank you. :ok:

Clipped
30th Dec 2011, 00:31
Not by lowering standards but by being better at what you do.

Please don't stop at your vague suggestions L2M. In your worldly wisdom, explain exactly what you mean by 'being better at what you do'. Of course, in the context of all the restrictions, rules, policies and inadequacies placed upon us by management.

I too have seen 'standard practices' elsewhere and it makes me shudder at the shortcuts forced on maintenance personnel because of cost controls, work pressures and cultural differences.

We do, do it better here and I'm much happier upholding these standards than that I have had to endure.

QF94
30th Dec 2011, 03:50
listentome,

Your not lowering standards at all, just meeting them. Lowering them would mean not completing the type certificated MPD or the state regulators rules. In that case, you would be increasing risk and breaching known standards of safety. Don't kid yourself that providing over and above the "standard" provides any increase in perceived safety. There is no minimum or maximum, just the required inspections.

This statement in itself is true. But as a QANTAS LAME, we would look at something outside the inspection zone, particularly skin and structural inspections, and even though the inspection zone would be OK, there would be at times be corrosion/damage outside the inspection zone. This would then be tended to. Is this kidding ourselves that "providing over and above the "standard" provides any increase in perceived inspection."? This same type of over and above inspection is what kept the aircraft in the air more often than on the ground.

We have seen in recent years that not going above and beyond the inspections has caused an increase in aircraft downtime, outsourced work having to be reworked when the aircraft comes back to Sydney with greatly reduced facilities in which to carry out the work, but it still gets done. This is because the engineers will do whatever it takes to get the job done, and to the best standards possible.

Ask yourself, why has the world moved from a max single engine diversion time of 60 mins to now in excess of 300? It's not because of a lame walk around.

This is because a new aircraft is more reliable. What happens when it ages? It requires more maintenance, and therefore more inspections, and we're right back where we started. Unless airlines are going to renew aircraft every 3-4 years, they will be needing more AME's/LAME's to inspect the aircraft to keep them in the air.

Ok, I'll bite...I'm a LAME with five types working at QF. I take great pride in my work and you will find one of the biggest advocates for both aviation safety and our trade. I have worked in many country's and seen far better and far worse, but I will tell you this, we and I mean we must all realise that the game has changed. You either move with it, or be left behind. Not by lowering standards but by being better at what you do.

The only part of the game that has changed is the management's attitude toward its workforce and their bottom line. Aircraft will ALWAYS require maintenance by engineers. No matter how smart these aircraft are, they cannot fix themselves. If more time and money was spent on maintaining the skills within the company (any company for that matter) and facilities, it will work out much cheaper down the track of having a workforce that is prepared to do the work, over and above, for the same cost and knowing you will have an A1 product at the end of it. Instead, we have a management that is prepared to spend more money on "cost saving" ventures than the actual cost savings intended.

The basics do not change, no matter the industry or the era we're in.

SpannerTwister
30th Dec 2011, 08:49
Was having a "few" over a BBQ with family and friends a couple of days ago, when the inevitable "How are you going at work ?" came up.

I told them that we've basically settled the EBA now but that the pilots and baggage handlers were still to negotiate.

They asked about what we do as far as the maintenance system works and what Qantas wants to do about it.

Then in a flash of inspired brilliance I explained it all thus.....

I said that if they were going to drive a long distance in their car, say from Sydney to Melbourne, they might give it a quick check over first, say check the tyre pressures and oil level, and maybe check the tyres wear levels.

Plenty of "Yeah" and "I guess so" and one or two "Of course" .......

I had them eating from my hand :D

So I said, that Sydney - Melbourne would be a "Short trip" for Qantas.

Heads nodding....They hadn't seen it coming yet :D :D

So I said that's just what we do...............

Plenty of agreement and heads still nodding.......

Then I said, "So what would you do if you were driving between Sydney and Melbourne and your car broke down?"

"Call the NRMA" was their answer.

"Well" I said, moving in for the kill, "That's basically what they want to do......Don't check the aircraft before it leaves and call the NRMA, that'll be us engineers, when it breaks down"

They didn't believe that !!

"But you can't pull over to the side of the road when you're at 30,000 feet" seemed to be the general consensus among the gathered !!

So that's, in my humble opinion, how we should see our services to the public, "Doing away with pre-flight checks is like relying on the NRMA to come and fix your aeroplane when it breaks down at 35,000
feet !! "

S_T

airsupport
30th Dec 2011, 09:04
IF you did not already do so, you should also point out to them, as has been explained here previously, the saving to QF by doing away with LAME preflights is LESS than $1 per seat, actually from memory is was 50 cents or less per seat/pax. :ugh:

How many QF pax would want that reduction in safety checks to save 50 cents, NONE I am thinking. :rolleyes:

tail wheel
30th Dec 2011, 19:51
The LAME EBA is finalised. This thread is degenerated into a repetitious debate on semantics?

Perhaps the thread has reached it's use by date?

Millet Fanger
30th Dec 2011, 20:02
But as a QANTAS LAME, we would look at something outside the inspection zone,Two classic examples of this occurred recently, a crack in one and worn beyond limits in another structural component. Rushing to the 'scene of the crime', one of the brilliant ops managers instead of wanting to view the defect or ensuring the path to rectification had been commenced, came out with the following words of wisdom - "Who is responsible for finding this defect?", "Why were you looking there, there is no OSIP inspection for looking there this visit?"

Unfortunately this ops manager has moved on to a larger type, good luck?

airsupport
30th Dec 2011, 20:11
The LAME EBA is finalised. This thread is degenerated into a repetitious debate on semantics?

Perhaps the thread has reached it's use by date?

tail wheel,

Do what you think you need to do, however with the greatest of respect, YES the EBA is signed but the prolems associated with it are far from over. :(

Best regards,

airsupport.

ALAEA Fed Sec
30th Dec 2011, 23:08
It's more like 3 cents a ticket. That taking into account the baggage handlers they would need to replace us with, their wage rises, the LAMEs you would need standing by anyway and the extended flts that would still require a LAME.

airsupport
30th Dec 2011, 23:25
My apologies, I am not privy to the exact figures, it is a ridiculous idea to do away with LAME preflights to save 50c-$1 per seat/pax as I thought it was, but in order to MAYBE save 3 cents, that is just :mad: stupidity.

Surely even the QF Management can fathom that. :rolleyes:

My Wife and other members of my Family regularly fly down to MEL and return on QF, usually on a B737, maybe QF could have something on their web site for when you book the flights, they already have options for insurance etc, I would gladly pay the 3 cents for EVERY seat on that flight to have a B737 LAME preflight their aircraft. :ok:

Short_Circuit
31st Dec 2011, 01:28
Brilliant!! a tick box to select if you want a flight with or without a LAME preflight @ 50cents cost :ok:

As for closing the thread, we ain't got the ok from FWA yet. It ain't over just yet.

QF94
31st Dec 2011, 05:11
This thread will remain open whilst this little ferret goes overseas before an announcement of his bonus of $600,000 worth of shares is published for meeting short-term investment plans.

Here's a link:

Qantas chief reaps $600,000 share bonus (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-chief-reaps-600000-share-bonus-20111230-1pfny.html)

Guess who's having a Happy New Year at the expense of others for stuffing things up the way he did?

Going Nowhere
31st Dec 2011, 19:55
AJ and partner were spotted buying luggage in Bourke St DJ's yesterday. Maybe heading somewhere? :E

QF94
31st Dec 2011, 20:40
Maybe they're going to their secret hideaway to lustfully celebrate AJ's 'bone us'.

borro
16th Feb 2019, 09:02
Heard yesterday indirectly that QF have made a counter offer regarding the LAME EBA.
The offer I’m told was zero % pay increase and a big fat no to the other 5 claim points.
I might have been miss informed so I’m happy to hear from anyone who can confirm or deny.
Borro

Bootstrap1
19th Feb 2019, 07:54
Only a 0% increase. At least we don't lose anything. Lol.

tail wheel
19th Feb 2019, 23:51
Last two posts moved here.

I realize this is an old thread, however knowing Qantas my guess the LAMEs are still head banging over the same EBA renewal............

C441
20th Feb 2019, 00:57
Only a 0% increase. At least we don't lose anything. Lol.

Interestingly at the latest Qantas AGM, the CEO briefly mentioned that a number of EA are up for renegotiation and emphasised that 3% p.a. is the only ‘give’ available to the various industrial associations. Greater ‘productivity’ would be expected if any agreement were to be forthcoming. :ugh: :rolleyes:

Rated De
20th Feb 2019, 03:50
Interestingly at the latest Qantas AGM, the CEO briefly mentioned that a number of EA are up for renegotiation and emphasised that 3% p.a. is the only ‘give’ available to the various industrial associations. Greater ‘productivity’ would be expected if any agreement were to be forthcoming. :ugh: :rolleyes:


As has been the industrial norm since Hawke et al set up the enterprise framework.
With headline CPI always hovering in the target band of 2-3% organised labour 'bargained away' hard won gains for 'cost of living adjustments' That cost of living is nothing to do with CPI is all part of the kabuki theatre that passes of as 'bargaining'.
Productivity another code word for giving something up, after all there is only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week.

As the asymmetry between management and employees continues to grow is it any wonder that household debt levels are rising?
More theatre that 'productivity' is mentioned in the same sentence as CPI. Reducing labour unit cost is the only consideration.


What they really mean is there is some third world hole with lower labour unit cost which are happy to do the work.
Whether or not that work is to standard, completed or even done doesn't get counted on the great big spread sheet in Fort Fumble.
Perhaps when 'management' actually give leadership and work 24 hours a day seven days a week, then perhaps labour productivity can be discussed.
All head offices of all corporate entities resemble ghost towns after about 4pm most nights and all weekend.

It is all theatre.

dragon man
20th Feb 2019, 04:53
Except in Qantas where it’s all day as the are on campus in the street with their offices empty.����