Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin [Archive] - Page 5

The Black Panther

3rd Jun 2011, 21:49

When things get tough perhaps we could take the fight to the public and engage the stakeholders of HM to contribute to place full page adverts in national newspapers about the off-shoring Qantas is planning and the revenue being removed from communities.

The Australian public buy Qantas tickets only to see the expenses to maintain the aircraft go to overseas pay packets and foreign suppliers (That will be the scenario with the A380 & B787). Sure you know when you buy and Apple iphone it's a foreign based company. But surely buying a Qantas ticket means supporting Australia.

When is Ausbuy not AusBuy - when you buy a Qantas ticket. No exaggeration if AJ could off-shore all wages he would. He'd have all cabin crew from any country whose wages costs in real terms are less than Australia. Now we see his business acumen it's not exactly clever or unique. I recall Al Dunlop (The Chainsaw in the 80's) had similar talents, he ended up on the same heap he created just like this turd will. Think outside the square and engage your employees, extract the value we can all add to this company, sustaining profits does not need to be growth based, moving into someone else s' backyard thinking you can do it better is fraught with danger. You can jiggle the intragroup transfers for so long and then the pack of cards fall down.

Clipped

4th Jun 2011, 08:58

For a feel good story, our Cliffy has something to say. Hold on.

QANTAS chairman Leigh Clifford has slammed rumours of a rift with chief executive Alan Joyce as "absolute rubbish" and says there is no board dissension over the company's industrial strategy.

Rumours of a rift and reservations by some board members about the developing battle with the airline's pilots and engineers have been swirling around the industry along with speculation about changes at the top.

But in a forthright interview with The Weekend Australian, Mr Clifford moved to emphatically quash the rumours while emphasising the need for a major revamp of the carrier's beleaguered international operations.

He also attacked the leadership of the pilot and engineering unions for its failure to understand the competitive threats facing Qantas.

As Qantas shares yesterday slumped to $2.03, their lowest point in nearly two years, Mr Clifford said he had worked with Mr Joyce for three years, and as chief executive for two, and enjoyed working with him.

He said the board had discussed in detail the airline's industrial relations issues, particularly the nature of claims by the pilots and the engineers. He and Mr Joyce spoke regularly about the issue although he was "very conscious" the chief executive was running the business". He had also personally canvassed every board member as part of an annual review and given each an opportunity to raise concerns.

"The board is absolutely right behind Alan and very comfortable with how he's running the business," he said. "Now that doesn't mean we're happy with where the business is, but absolutely Alan and I are in lockstep."

Operations at Qantas international are under review as the long-haul airline continues to fail to make a return on capital in the face of increasing competition. At the same time, the airline is also facing industrial action by unions over job security issues.

Mr Clifford said the board was aware of the challenges facing the industry and the directors were "absolutely on the same page about the importance of making changes", including to the loss-making international airline.

"They understand the predicament of the international business and we are looking at alternatives," he said.

"And what I can assure you is it will be different going forward -- make no bones about it, it will be different going forward -- it cannot remain as it is."

Asked whether this included a full-service airline in Asia, Mr Clifford pointed to comments by Mr Joyce that alternatives were being considered.

"We're looking at a variety of alternatives and one of the discussions I've had with Alan is 'let's not constrain ourselves'," he said. "What we've got to do is have something which can ensure the viability of the business going forward and an adequate return on capital and that's not what we're getting at the moment. That's the best way to secure jobs. Writing pieces of paper is not the way to do it, whether you're in the auto industry or any other industry."

The Qantas chairman said he had briefed major shareholders on the airline's situation and they had rightly highlighted their concern about the airline's economic performance, particularly in the international business, as well as the lack of reality in union claims.

He said he was aware the union leadership was briefing analysts but "wise and experienced people" would know the union objective was to create concern and disharmony, and pressure management.

But management already had plenty of pressure from the share price, the profit performance and the encroachment of Emirates and AirAsia.

"We can handle the competitive environment, we can't do it sitting on our hands," he said "We've got to be creative, we've got to be thoughtful and we're willing to do that. That's how we'll respond to the share price and, frankly, I'd say every investor I've spoken to is right behind that."

Mr Clifford said he was also concerned that employees were being misinformed by their union leaders. He said anyone who understood what was going on in the aviation industry understood the magnitude of the challenges facing the company.

"Frankly, I've spent more time on some of those claims than the other board members in discussion with Alan," he said. "You have to say to yourself, 'What planet are these people on given the competitive environment?' Haven't they heard of AirAsia, haven't they heard of the challenges coming from Emirates, from Etihad, from Qatar.

"They only have to speak to Airbus so see what the order books look like to understand some of the challenges

There you are, feel better now?.

the_company_spy

4th Jun 2011, 09:21

Assclown. Now we can be sure where Qf management get their incompetence from, the very top, the chairman of the board.

I would like to see as a shareholder the return on investment I am gaining from Joyce, Clifford, with, Grant in fact the entire board and the toxic board and exco.

Redstone

4th Jun 2011, 11:33

Does this sound familiar? A blast from the past, 6 years ago to be exact.

Qantas move offshore might cost 2500 jobsBy Scott Rochfort and Nick O'Malley
October 22, 2005

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer formatQantas chief executive Geoff Dixon has put himself on a collision course with the unions, after confirming the airline was looking to move "significant parts" of its engineering operations overseas.

Such a move could result in the loss of up to 2500 maintenance jobs.

Citing the recent decisions by Air New Zealand and United Airlines to relocate their long-haul heavy maintenance work overseas, Mr Dixon said Qantas would have to follow suit if it could not make its Australian operations "globally competitive".

He said a final decision would be made by February.

Mr Dixon said, however, that the warning had nothing to do with upcoming enterprise bargaining talks between Qantas and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which represents around 1500 Qantas maintenance staff.

"The bigger issue here is that the industry's changing and it's not about Qantas saying, 'Well gee, I've got a negotiation coming up with the AMWU'," Mr Dixon said.

"It's got nothing at all to do with our EBA [Enterprise Bargaining Agreement]. This is much bigger."

Advertisement
AdvertisementMr Dixon said the possible maintenance job cuts did "not necessarily" represent the largest component of the airline's plans to cut a further $1.5 billion off its cost base in the next two years. But he argued the airline had created 10,000 job in the past decade. "Not one of these have been created by a union," he said.

The national secretary of the AMWU, Doug Cameron, said: "We are going to fight this industrially, politically and publicly."

Relations between workers and the airline soured in the past year after what unions said had been deliberate intimidation.

"This constant campaign of fear and paranoia is diabolical," said the secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Bill Shorten.

"They have definitely pissed off a lot of people this time."

He said the airline's industrial relations managers were a "bunch of clowns running a media campaign rather than talking to their workforce".

Mr Shorten called on Qantas to stop negotiating through the media and put its cards on the table.

Australian Services Union assistant national secretary Linda White said she was yet to get a clear guarantee Qantas would not sack any of its 2000 call centre staff.

"With Qantas, we'll have to wait until it reaches the front page of a newspaper. That's how they conduct their industrial relations," Ms White said.

Mr Dixon said: "We will not be making firm guarantees to the likes of the ASU."

Qantas also confirmed a further 70 engineering staff could go after it lost a technical handling contract with Singapore Airlines on Friday.

Singapore Air said Qantas had tried to lift the price of the $9 million a year contract by "at least" 30 per cent last week. It said the price hike was closer to 50 per cent, given Qantas had decided to stop providing "pushback, water and toilet" servicing to Singapore Air aircraft.

"We had every intention of recontracting Qantas to provide our Australian-based engineering services. We were surprised in the negotiations that Qantas lifted its rate well above market rates," Singapore Air spokeswoman Kate Pratley said.

She noted Qantas came through with the proposed price increase only a week ago.

Singapore Airlines declined to comment on suggestions Qantas no longer wanted the contract and had used it as a ploy to cut its maintenance workforce.

"It's a question you should ask Qantas," Singapore Air's head spokesman, Stephen Foreshaw, said.

Qantas spokeswoman Belinda de Rome said Qantas was "disappointed" it had lost the contract.

The move comes two months after Singapore Air said it would not renew its ground-handling contract with Qantas, which Qantas said would result in the loss of 200 jobs.

The song remains the same, like Medusa cut one head off and two grow in it's place.

sky rocket

4th Jun 2011, 12:37

It's true. Once the board is replaced we will be fine.

BrissySparkyCoit

4th Jun 2011, 15:57

Singapore Air said Qantas had tried to lift the price of the $9 million a year contract by "at least" 30 per cent last week. It said the price hike was closer to 50 per cent, given Qantas had decided to stop providing "pushback, water and toilet" servicing to Singapore Air aircraft.
Note the date of the article?

October 22, 2005Yet Mr CN lead us to believe that it was the LAME's PIA that caused customers to lose confidence in our abilitly to carry out their work. (A "fact" that was repeated to me in parrot fashion by a manager during our service Quality day)

http://www.alaea.asn.au/CMS/plainText/Notices/files/20070827_Protected%20Industrial%20Action%20Authorisation.pdf

This ALAEA notice is dated August 2007, the first to announce application for PIA.
Almost 2 whole years AFTER customer contracts began to be destroyed.

:ugh:

listentome

5th Jun 2011, 00:18

So its all gone quiet from the ALAEA......is it true they got threatened with court action from QF and the legal advice they got was that they would loose loose loose with a BIG monetary penalty they couldnt afford?
Snakes and ladders, go back to square one gents...

BrissySparkyCoit

5th Jun 2011, 00:22

If you attended one of the meetings last week, you would know what's happening.
If you have yet to attend a meeting in your port, make sure you attend.
If you are not a member, nothing to see here.

33 Disengage

5th Jun 2011, 01:53

Thanks for your attempt at FUD, but best leave future efforts to onionist, shareholder and co.

Things have gone quiet while more attempts are made at negotiating an agreement. Everything else in your post is total rubbish!

Jet-A-One

5th Jun 2011, 02:38

Apparently ops manager MS was canvassing SYD Base LAMEs the other day proposing an extension of the company's current 3+3+3 offer to include an extra grade for everyone, not just those blocked by quotas.

Word is, he was getting plenty of good feedback from the troops too.

Has anyone else heard of a renewed company offer in the pipeline?

Short_Circuit

5th Jun 2011, 02:47

3+3+3 offer to include an extra grade for everyone PLUS job security will solve this mess tomorrow :ok:

ALAEA Fed Sec

5th Jun 2011, 03:48

They could offer you 5 grades each and it would make no difference if you have no job security. Don't be sucked in.

division1

5th Jun 2011, 04:18

Could someone refresh my memory with the status of our PIA ballot?
What of the pilots ballot? When do the planets align? Lets get on with it.

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 04:28

They could offer you 5 grades each and it would make no difference if you have no job security. Don't be sucked in.

That's the one thing you probably won't ever get, not from any kind of management except the most absolutely and utterly incompetent. I know you don't like it, none of us do, but we're competing on a big world stage. The only way to get job security is to be competitively cost effective.

My opinion on that is well known, and it cannot be achieved by QF restricting wages and conditions. Equally to prevent QF from having outsourcing as an option is not right either.

Think of it this way - how would all LAMEs like it if they had to buy Australian made cars? There are plenty of imports driving to and from site each day so it's not like QF if the only one facing international competition.

Ever bought a book off Amazon instead of your local bookshop? Software? DVDs? Clothes? Bought from EBAY? If so then your position is hypocritical, you want the benefits of competition without facing it yourself.

These are all forms of competition that many people use each and every day and it's wreaking havoc across the Australian retail scene. Only those smart enough to adapt and offer better value, perhaps through convenience, perhaps by local knowledge or whatever, will continue into the future.

For QF Engineering I see the solution as actually working together, and that takes both sides to come to the party. Scheduled turnarounds in less time allowing seats to be sold or perhaps even less aircraft to be utilised to cover route requirements (i.e. less "spare capacity" in the network to allow for planned aircraft downtime) is a major cost saving. Problem is the way both parties are fighting at the moment the argument is all about direct costs associated with labour. The indirect costs I mentioned are potentially far higher, couple that with every other indirect cost you can think of and the number gets big very quickly.

You'll probably want to tell me QF management don't want to negotiate in that way, and you may well be right. But if you're smart, and I know you are, then you and your team are going to have to not only lead QF to water but get them to drink. YOU and your guys need to show them the real and actual benefits of doign work here with hard numbers, not just the argument of "we're safe, we're the best, planes will crash" etc etc etc.

None of the people in QF management are stupid despite what many here like to think. They may not see the world the same way as you, they may not agree with what you are saying, but ultimately if they can do their job and improve profitability then they will. How you start that I'm not sure, I've always been on the side where I've been trying to get people to undertake programs to make the workplace more effective, I've always listened to my people and considered their opinions even if I eventually disagree with them and don't go down that path.

How you get that relationship back with QF I'm not certain, but I suggest that sticking to what you are currently defining as job security is unlikely to get you what you really want.

Silverado

5th Jun 2011, 04:55

Romulus,

Please explain, what it is, you think our job security claim is?

Short_Circuit

5th Jun 2011, 05:07

how would all LAMEs like it if they had to buy Australian made cars?Yes I do own Australian cars, have all my driving life!

Ever bought a book off Amazon instead of your local bookshop?No, Never!

That's the one thing you probably won't ever get (job security)Jetconnect pilots apparently have!

Scheduled turnarounds in less timeDone that, proved 767 A ck turnaround can be regularly achieved in 16 hrs or less at SYD Base.

:hmm::hmm::hmm:
Next!!!

Ngineer

5th Jun 2011, 05:20

That's the one thing you probably won't ever get

Looks like it will be a very protracted and eventful PIA then. It will be a good experience for those manager's that were not around for the last one.

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 05:28

Please explain, what it is, you think our job security claim is?

Public domain knowledge such as:

All Qantas & Forstaff Members - Notice 016 - RE: Qantas LAME EA Claims (http://www.alaea.asn.au/notices/notices-2011/231-all-qantas-a-forstaff-members-notice-016-re-qantas-lame-ea-claims.html)

and let's take Ben Sandilands' piece

Qantas, job security and a real discussion | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/05/10/qantas-job-security-and-a-real-discussion/)

All of which is pretty reasonable if everyone plays in the spirit of things, the problem comes down to restricting the ability of managers to manage if things are not going well.

Let's take a hypothetical - job security comes in to the extent that all 787 work must be performed by QF directly employed LAMEs.

Can you see the difficulties that MAY produce?

What if QF Eng are not making anywhere near international benchmarks?

Plenty of other adverse outcomes could be envisaged, this security clause *IS* a gun that can easily be held against management's head and should NOT be accepted by sane management.

And that's part of the problem. Contracts, including EBA's and other forms of labour contract, do not deliver anything. Relationships do. Epople do. The contract only really comes in to play when things are going bad. Which means when negotiating everyone MUST consider the worst case because what is written is what they will be bound by.

In a well functioning company it should never get to that. Managers should manage and handle their staff issues with fairness and respect themselves, not by passing it to HR. Sometimes that means tough answers must be given, so be it as long as it is done fairly.

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 05:31

Next!!!

How about clothing all made in Australia?

How about furniture and petrol and everything else?

Even the brand of milk you buy - is that ultimately Australian owned?

Where do your tools come from?

And if you honestly maintain that everything you do is absolutely Australian then you are in the absolute minority.

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 05:34

Done that, proved 767 A ck turnaround can be regularly achieved in 16 hrs or less at SYD Base.

This is how the battle should be fought. Hammer these facts relentlessly and you win the PR war and ultimately, no matter how pig headed your opponents, you win the logic war and thus your case.

Protectionism by contract is no substitute for protectionism by superior performance, simple as that.

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 05:35

Looks like it will be a very protracted and eventful PIA then. It will be a good experience for those manager's that were not around for the last one.

Which is the very attitude that self perpetuates the problem.

On both sides.

ALAEA Fed Sec

5th Jun 2011, 05:46

When do the planets align? Lets get on with it.

It's not a race. We all need to be patient.

Ngineer

5th Jun 2011, 06:52

Romulus, some of your points may be logical in a fair and perfect world, which leads me to believe that you do not work in our dept or even the same company.

Take a good walk in another man's shoe's and maybe you may understand where he is coming from. Sometimes productivity and hard work means nothing to those that you are providing it to. Instead you give an inch and they just take a mile.

Sunfish

5th Jun 2011, 07:09

Romulus makes some very good points, you cannot argue with the need for competition.

We also know that the world is not a level playing field and some countries and companies are prepared to tilt the field in their favor.

However, this is where leadership and judgment need to be applied and I believe the central proposition of both pilots and engineers is that this is not only lacking in Qantas, but that the truth is willfully and deliberately suppressed.

To put it another way; Qantas management has decided, come hell or high water, that Australian engineers and pilots are a threat to them - the management. That threat must be eliminated. The chosen method is the accusation that they are too expensive, in other words, their unit productivity is lower than comparable overseas operators.

Now this is not an unusual situation in business. I've been on both sides of that argument myself. A weak management will attempt to remove any threats to its authority from natural leaders within the workforce - people with hands on experience who show them up as inadequate.

To put it another way; If you want to become redundant, wait until a new Manager unfamiliar with the business arrives and makes an obviously silly observation and proposal about the operation: walk up to him and say "Now listen Sonny" followed by a detailed and correct technical statement correcting him.

The evidence I have for this is anecdotal but telling.

The most critical and damning evidence is the practice by the Board of labelling Qantas mainline as a LEGACY AIRLINE. If you know anything about human communications and behaviour, you will immediately know that this is an instruction to every single layer of Qantas management to run down the business (ie: Harvest and do not invest) and treat its employees as a wasting asset (no training, no new hires, no promotion, no innovation, no concern for retention rates or skill profiles).

THAT MINDSET IS VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE QANTAS COMMUNICATION, VERBAL OR NOT.

And of course since this is the Board view we will act as if it is true.....

Rumor somewhere on one of these threads is that the difference in overhaul costs between a foreign MRO and Qantas engineering was barely 2.5%. We even know that this is probably only on the base price and that the "extra " work discovered in the check, that Qantas staff would automatically correct at no additional cost will be charged at swinging rates by the MRO.

Then of course we have the A380 maintenance and the Rolls Royce Maintenance......

Would someone like to argue that the good folk at Lufthansa Teknik in Hamburg are going to cost less than Qantas engineers and have lower overheads? Didn't think so.

Did Qantas try and have a State Government spring them for an A380 hangar and staging? Perhaps at Avalon or Brisbane?

Yes, I know the provisioning costs would be higher, but how don't you think that Lufthansa aren't going to charge you an arm and a leg?

Remember TAA and Ansett both ran B727, Do you think that some bean counter didn't also think about a combined maintenance facility? Couldn't work because the maintenance and investment strategies were totally different. Ansett gold plated its aircraft (before Eddington) and kept them right up there in mod status, TAA didn't. Guess which set of flaps TAA borrowed? I speak from experience.

As for Rolls Royce, Qantas is already reaping the bitter fruits of that decision. Wait till you have B747 scattered all over the route back from Dallas - Fort Worth awaiting engine changes.

Then of course there was the incomprehensible decision to do away with contract work, not only losing contribution margin, but leaving other airlines high and dry.

Staples? Hundreds of defects on "overhauled, as new" aircraft? Midnight certifications?

No, Australian Engineers and Pilots are overpaid, lazy and unproductive. The Board has decided they are. Management will act as if it is true. You can't argue with them, their mind is made up, besides using overseas MRO's provides a perfect excuse for numerous overseas trips, who wants to have to go to Tullamarine or Avalon? The Interconti in Hamburg is so much more fun, boating on the Alster, the Reeperbahn...

You can't win with this lot, you won't even get a chance to prove yourselves. You are a threat to their authority.

lame1

5th Jun 2011, 07:11

Arnold E

5th Jun 2011, 09:24

Romulus,Where are you, I'm with lame1

ampclamp

5th Jun 2011, 10:02

ABAT4t2

5th Jun 2011, 10:10

romulus and sunfish are not clever there are part of the problem. You would do well to go back in history and revisit how some of the great companies of today became great.

Amazing as it seems they took care of their workforce by offering housing, health benefits, canteens and and and. It was a win-win situation. Productivity went through the roof, workers were healthier and could work harder, profits soared. That was the 18-early 1900's.

What have we got now. Apparently intelligent individuals like sunfish and romulus rant on about being globally competitive. These fools would have you believe that you need to come down to the lowest common denominator of wages and social support in order for the mothership to survive. What they don't tell you about is the range of studies highlighting this ultimately leads to a company going bankrupt both financially and socially unless they radically change track.

Globalisation is nothing more than spin in order to fill fewer pockets with more money. When I buy an Australian product, also contained in the price is an element of cost to go towards the social and health structure etc. we have become accustomed to in Australia. This obviously adds a bit to the price.

Where is that additional cost in a Chinese product for example. Are we happy with the social and health structure in China? Succumbing to Globalisation will ultimately bring our social structure down to the lowest common denominator. The romulus's and sunfishes of this world are nothing more than leeches who will go with the flow for their own ends.

True men will stand up and fight globalisation. True visionists will refer back to the 1800's and contemplate how they can improve life for all in the 21st century. The true visionists of this world invested heavily in both the industrial and social infrastructure.

Attempting to undermine the industrial and social infrastructure will end in disaster.

Scoundrels will force the workforce into a fight to the bitter end and yes it is better to fight than to succumb to globalisation in its present format.

Dunnocks

5th Jun 2011, 10:26

OK, I've had a few beers, but, you nailed it, bloke. :D:D
The reasoning behind shutting Sydney Heavy has long been called into question....and the assclown responsible is now leading the negotiations on the the company side, along with 'I used to be an incompetent training coordinator, now I are a manager'...
If we came to them tomorrow with a set of gold-plated numbers about A380 Heavy Maintenance, they'd take them away for analysis, all the while continuing their off-shoring agenda...
What about an Airbus Centre of Excellence at Brisbane? I'm sure Anna Bligh would chip in a few mill to build a hangar in return for a few hundred jobs....They won't even consider it...
Here's a tip: Google 'Leigh Clifford anti union'...

Jetsbest

5th Jun 2011, 10:31

The Chopper

5th Jun 2011, 10:58

lame1

5th Jun 2011, 11:54

I think you'll find Jetstar are very happy with the JH A330 checks.

My guess is that it's been outsourced so when the mothership worker bees spit the dummy the low cost saviour doesn't completely shut down too..

Keep digging lads!

Chopper you missed my point.The decision given by Qantas was that JH were cheaper.I still cant work out how that is the case.All I can see is money that once stayed within the group now goes to JH.
Please explain how the shareholders have benefited by this exercise.

Righty Tighty

6th Jun 2011, 00:18

I think you'll find Jetstar are very happy with the JH A330 checks.
THE CHOPPER.
Chopper you have to be an idiot if you think Jetstar and even Virgin are happy with the builders.
IT is a fact that Jetstar have had to send there own LAME's down to Melbourne to help with the 330 checks,engine changes etc,all done on o/t,allowances,hotel costs,pritty sure these expenses are added to engineering costs not added to JH,carpet broom I think you will find.
Most of the guys who have gone are all ex QF lames trying to help there new employer,but even these guys have just about had enough.Back in DEC,nearly 20 staff from NTL were sent down to get a 320 out of a C chk,
JH can't keep employees,as soon as a better job offer comes they are gone,The lastest 457 boys had a lot of problems with passing AA,
I think you will also find that once VA builds the hanger in SYD that there A330 work will come back in house,so happy I don't think so:ok:

Jethro Gibbs

6th Jun 2011, 01:58

JOB VACANCY - B747-400 LAME Fixed Term .

SEEK - JOB VACANCY - B747-400 LAME Fixed Term Job in Geelong & Great Ocean Road (http://www.seek.com.au/Job/job-vacancy-b747-400-lame-fixed-term/in/geelong-great-ocean-road/19913958)

Slim Dog

6th Jun 2011, 04:27

Vote is in again....bring it. :ok:

Romulus

6th Jun 2011, 08:26

Romulus,
Being just a LAME im probably not as smart as you but I would like you to explain the merit and financial gain to the Qantas group by outsourcing the Jetstar A330's to JH .This fuction was being carried out by QF mainline with excellent turn times and manpower levels.The new arrangments see the cost to maintain these birds go outside the group.I believe its a perfect example of waste to the shareholder.Its also interesting to note that JH dont have the capability to carryout all the necessary checks.Engine washes are just one example.Also JH have a acute shortage of licence coverage and tooling to handle the A/C.

Odds are you are as smart as me, most likely in different ways. I can't do what you do, you probably can't do what I do. Vive le difference etc.

As for outsourcing the 330s the most logical reason would be that when you look to the future the 787 will require all of QF mainline. But that's just logical. It may well be that the decision is political. As I've previously said, don't fight the previous war because then teh enemy will flog you. That's a lesson of history that is so often repeated it isn't funny.

In my opinion QF have learned. The 330 outsourcing is a message, and not a very expensive one at that. Nor very subtle.

It's been a fair while since I was at JHAS but what they always needed to help drive their pricing down, as most businesses do, was volume to spread overheads across. JHAS has some advantages and some disadvantages, the lack of their own fleet being the most obvious. In order to get competitive tension in the market QF need a capable JHAS whilst not depending on them entirely for eng services.

Engine washes, licences and tooling I can't comment on, I have no idea what the current situation is.

Romulus

6th Jun 2011, 08:40

Romulus. They run the show.If they showed an ounce of balls and honesty they would approach us for ideas and open up genuine talks with the guys on how to get a compromise . Their tactics are and always have been confrontational. That is a very difficult place to hold negotiations. It takes a leader to sort this out. Qantas has none in its executive ranks, not one. All bosses all clones no leaders.
Joyce blew it when he called us kamikazes and was less than completely honest about our claims.

No argument with much of this. As I said previously, I'm used to being on the management side looking to get change introduced and it being resisted by the workforce. Suspicion and fear is always rampant in these things.

Note that I'm not saying to trust QF management, in your position I wouldn't either. Somewhere recently I have said that to solve what ails QF Eng (and yes, you do have issues as does any organisation) will take a fundamental shift in mindset and I'm used to that being led by management. Most people are fundamentally easy to manage, it starts with being honest, setting a direction and simply telling it how it is without spin. A lot of the time that message isn't palatable, it takes real guts to manage that way because everyone hates you. But it is the only way I have ever seen work to build trust. I don't think anyone at JHAS would say I was their friend, but nobody there could ever say I lied to them because, quite simply, I didn't. And there were some pretty hard messages in what I told people, but it was always told up front and without crap. A lot of the guys thought I was a ******** at first, undoubtedly there are some who still do. But most of them would hopefully say I never led them astray (at least not deliberately), I was always up front, and I always felt that when I asked them for something they gave it to me not because of my then position but because they knew I was asking for a reason and not to jerk them around. But that reputation had to be earned. It's not easy having everyone think you're a ********, it takes a very very thick skin to get through it.

Sooner or later that's what QF management will have to do. What I really really suggest you guys do is keep your eyes and ears open and listen and observe and when the change in behaviour comes give it some encouragement. The natural tendency is to take the "F**k you" response, that will ultimately get you nowhere. I'm not saying to give in now, what I'm saying is that if you can help QF management find the way to start the positive circle then you can rebuild a far more positive environment and level of job security.

Some may say I look through rose coloured glasses, so be it. My response to that is to say if the world is as bleak as some would have it then for the sake of your own sanity get out.

Romulus

6th Jun 2011, 08:57

At the risk of interjecting on a LAME thread.... (forgive me)

Your points are all very logical until one faces management who;
- acknowledge that its pilots are some of the most experienced in the world,
- already use 'world's best practice' (ie the most 2nd Officers) for the longhaul flying done,
- acknowledge that, were it not for the skills of the crews involved (eg A330 QF72, 747 QF30 & A380 QF32), QF may have had far worse outcomes,
- will acknowledge that its pilots aren't the most expensive compared to similar airlines,
- agree on numerous efficiencies the pilots have identified,
- make marketing pitches, spoken by movie stars, like "there's no one I'd rather have up front than a Qantas pilot"...

AND YET... despite past-practice in QF, and 'job security' clauses in present Jetconnect, Lufthansa and many other successful & reputable airlines...

- absolutely REFUSE to allay QF pilot & engineer concerns that it intends to set-up even more off-shoring,
- denigrates its own employees in public forums (kamikazes? "what planet are they on?"),
- intentionally & grossly misrepresents facts to media outlets (26%, QF mainline is still recruiting, QF pilots average $350k/year, no QF pilots have been made redundant in 40 years but omitting that plenty took BIG voluntary work/pay cuts specifically to avoid QF-threatened retrenchments etc)
- seem to be doing more brand damage by their negative statements than any employees could, and
- allocates mainline-derived profits to varied other ventures and then infers that mainline is the problem!

Employees are exasperated! There is NO trust in anything management says. There is NO sense of management integrity. Managers have lost the mantle of 'leadership' and are apparently resorting to principles more akin to kindergarten discipline in the absence of any real credibility. It IS NOT working at the coal-face; it's resented ever more with each new attempt to discredit the people with the most to lose; the long-term employees!

Romulus, how would you deal with that climate? :rolleyes:

Disclaimer up front - I have bugger all idea about the pilot situation, I have an expired single engine licence that I'd love to renew but hey, things just keep getting in the way and time gets allocated elsewhere.

The thing I absolutely detest about the way this dispute is being handled is the denigration of the people. It's just plain wrong and leads to all sorts of problems, many of which are now manifesting.

At the risk of taking a slight detour look at Kenny Dalglish at Liverpool. He took over Benitez's squad and immediately stopped carping about buying better players, he worked with his team, trusted in them and hings changed very quickly. Self confidence is a funny thing and can be very resilient, even when battered it will bounce back pretty quickly provided the conditions are genuinely provided.

I also detest the use of lies. If it IS 26% and $350K then release the genuine figures to show it (not to an individual level of course but if you have a pilot wages bill of $350,000,000 and 1000 pilots then say so) and go from there.

The best way for that to be handled is for QF management to change it, be under no misconceptions that is my belief.

Equally from your perspective you need to overcome a massive hurdle - pilots are overpaid pretty boys who shag hosties in glamourous locations. A usual case of the minority casuign problems for the majority, especially when it is fed into the mainstream via Hollywood etc.

First step for pilots, in my opinion, would be the PR. "Hi, I'm Barry and I'm a Qantas captain" is far more likely to resonate and engage than "I'm Captain Barry Smith". We're Australian after all. And from there focus on teh facts. You pay $X thousand out of your own pocket to get trained, you build Y hours in dusty parts of the world just to build hours etc etc etc before you can even get close to a QF job. And then you start on whatever the entry pay scale is.

Clean, simple facts. That anybody who knows knows support your case.

With regard to your management I don't really know enough to comment, I've heard enough poison dripping when I've been in airports to know something is amiss, I'd go back to my basic principle of demonstrating value - how do you minimise fuel burn, late departures etc etc that goes beyond teh call of second tier pilots.

The safety card is *NOT* a winner because that is *EXPECTED*.

I have no real idea what makes for super efficient pilot opeations, but figure that out and you figure out where you need to get management's attention.

ampclamp

6th Jun 2011, 12:19

Romulus, thanks for the reply.

Jetsbest

6th Jun 2011, 12:30

Ditto, for the reply... :ok:

Sunfish

6th Jun 2011, 17:15

Romulus:

The thing I absolutely detest about the way this dispute is being handled is the denigration of the people. It's just plain wrong and leads to all sorts of problems, many of which are now manifesting.

Agree 100%.

chockchucker

6th Jun 2011, 23:56

Romulus, a little further insight into the lunatic-in-charge of the Qantas assylumn..................

Qantas CEO continues to downtalk the brand and reverse the realities
June 7, 2011 – 7:55 am, by Ben Sandilands

Qantas is making a dismal spectacle of itself at the IATA conference at Singapore.

In this morning’s reports by invited and hosted media the group’s CEO, Alan Joyce, says he is not going to spend any more money on “the premium international operation until they (start) to return their cost of capital” (SMH) and will “reconsider new aircraft orders” (The Australian.)

In these reports he also signals a new communications strategy from Qantas to rubbish its own core brand, by describing Jetstar and the frequent flyer program as subsidising the full service operation.

This is a reversal of the realities of massive subsidies or transfers of assets from Qantas to Jetstar, which if these inputs were truthfully detailed, would show a very different situation in terms of the relative performances of the punitive Jetstar experience and the premium Qantas divisions.

There are also inconsistencies in what Joyce is reported to have said. While he claims to be reconsidering new orders and is not injecting new funds into the international Qantas division, he is still taking all of the undelivered A380 order, which if true means they are suddenly ‘free’.

These statements seem to belong to the same genre as those claiming the pilot union agreement for a 2.5 percent pay rise per annum over three years equals an unsustainable 26 percent cost impost. The only thing unsustainable about this is the arithmetic. The only way to get anywhere near 26 percent is to count recurring costs that are already present as a continuing cost of doing business, and have nothing to do with base pay.

This claim by management is about as credible as its submission to the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, in which Joyce failed to acknowledge that the reason why a Jetstar A320 nearly crashed at Melbourne Airport in 2007 was the result of improper changes to the approved flight manual procedure for flying a ‘go around’ and that he was the then CEO of that airline and responsible for the inferior and deeply flawed decisions taken by the carrier.

The burning questions this morning are why Joyce would slam his own premium brand and verbal its pilots and engineers at the leading international forum for airline managements only hours after the Qantas share price out-plunged the general retreat on the ASX?

Why does he rubbish the premium product which has been his responsibility for two years? Why does it describe its engineering and pilot unions as ‘rogue’ when their actions to date are lawful and fully within the prescriptions of Fair Work Australia, and are a consequence of an inability of management to secure a timely resolution of expiring industrial agreements.

One of the obvious reasons why the Qantas premium product is in trouble is that it isn’t competitively premium, which is his responsibility, and has a route structure which is variously inefficient or impracticable for many of the travellers that have crossed over to Emirates and Singapore Airlines, which is also his responsibility.

The latest act of management genius is a low frequency, range challenged flight to Dalls Fort Worth in a jet that can’t do the distance reliably, adds extra stops along the route for some passengers, and occasionally deprives them of their checked luggage as well as offering them a cabin amenity inferior to that on Qantas A380s.

Qantas may get soft media in Australia, and a soft ride from those who are indulged with free entry to the Chairmans Lounges. But Joyce is in a room in Singapore where has competitors can see right through him, and must wonder how much longer the airline will continue to provide them with easy pickings.

Nassensteins Monster

7th Jun 2011, 00:42

Just heard on the radio: SQ & Virgin Australia to code-share on over 30 flights, pending approval by ACCC.

Not only is Qantas standing still while the world races ahead, but the CEO is talking the company down.

He's not going to spend money on the premium product? Oh dear. Yet one more aspect of the mainline flying business - the part where the profits are - that will be left to wither on the vine. :ugh:

What hope is there when managers would rather "save" a dollar than spend one to make two? :yuk: Such a pity. Borghetti understood this principle. Romulus, Sunfish et al: am I missing something? :confused:

The other question for institutional investors and interested journalists is: what is the true extent of cross-subsidisation of the mainline and JQ? Maintenance, engineering/operational/managerial support, supply chain, ground equipment, hangar space, ticketing... To what extent is the JQ cuckoo chick outgrowing the ability of the mainline parent to feed it. How long before the hungry chick eats the parent?

Romulus

7th Jun 2011, 03:12

Chock, whoever is running the comms strategy for QF is operating from the Dilbert zone, no question. The message in that and other speeches is moronic IMNSHO. I'm quite happy to say some things need to change at QF Engineering, I doubt anyone denies that except the gravy train riders.

But I have yet to see, anywhere in the world, any genuine evidence that abuse leads to anything positive. You can browbeat people to an extent, but sooner or later they'll kick back and that's never pleasant.

Given QF management's love of MBO (management buy out) strategies maybe QF Engineering should consider a buyout of their own. Make it a genuinely outsourced operation competing directly with the other MROs free from QF central managemtn interference.

Sunfish

7th Jun 2011, 04:30

Romulus:

Given QF management's love of MBO (management buy out) strategies maybe QF Engineering should consider a buyout of their own. Make it a genuinely outsourced operation competing directly with the other MROs free from QF central management interference.

But...but.. then the QF engineering management would have no one to torture and denigrate.

LAME2

7th Jun 2011, 05:57

Joyce seems to me to have lost any self control. It leads me to think his time in the trough is limited and he knows it.

Seems indicative Execo have no strategy or road plan ahead.

Direction-less comes to mind.

This outburst reminded me of the last days of MH, 2 years ago.

ALAEA Fed Sec

7th Jun 2011, 06:09

Isn't saying something to the detriment of the Qantas brand against Qantas policy?

NuckingFuts

7th Jun 2011, 07:08

Hey FedSec, what's with all the 737NG jobs advertised at Forstaff? Short term contracts?
:suspect:

Gas Bags

7th Jun 2011, 07:12

Dont forget the 737CL guys who started a couple of months ago, and also the currently advertised 747-400 jobs....all on short term contract. Are Forstaff expecting a sudden influx of work over the next 6 months???

1me

7th Jun 2011, 07:12

Isn't saying something to the detriment of the Qantas brand against Qantas policy? Well maybe for you and I SP.. Obviously for the fools steering the ship (and I'm certainly not talking about our pilot brothers and sisters) there is no such concern!

Collando

7th Jun 2011, 10:05

The quick resolution of the Forstaff EBA was never about the reconfig work. I suspect it was about preventing the possibility of the workforce there also being able to take industrial action while the qantas EA was being battled out. Expect aircraft to go to Avalon if the need arises when/if things get nasty.

What The

7th Jun 2011, 10:08

Steve,

If the allegation by the pilot can be confirmed, it is very telling of the underlying plans in place by the management of this airline.
Source: Qantas EA ballot (http://www.alaea.asn.au/news/261-qantas-ea-ballot.html)

Qantas EA ballot (http://www.pprune.org/news/261-qantas-ea-ballot.html)

http://www.pprune.org/templates/news_template/images/PostDateIcon.pngTuesday, 07 June 2011 15:51

News (http://www.pprune.org/component/content/section/1.html) - Latest (http://www.pprune.org/news.html)
Hi Members,

Ballot papers have started arriving at homes seeking approval for a slightly varied and legally tighter set of options for Protected Industrial Action by Qantas LAMEs. I hope that you are all able to get the papers back to the Australian Electoral Commission as soon as possible and remind LAMEs that 100% of the members can select yes but we also require a return rate of greater than 50% to make the result valid. The ballot rolls were tidied up recently but it is usually the case that some members have moved or had their papers lost in the mail. If your paper does not arrive by the end of this week please contact the office and they will assist with a duplicate paper.

The ALAEA are recommending members approve these actions. Negotiations have been ongoing in the last two weeks and it this stage I think it would be fair to report that we are no closer to resolution. Without this second ballot we are assuming that Qantas always intended to have our first actions overturned in courtrooms and thus felt no compulsion to negotiate a fair outcome. Without the option of PIA being available, we consider it unlikely that the current Qantas negotiating team will deliver on the most important aspect of our claims being job security. We have since the commencement of these discussions said that they could increase our wages by $1000 per week and it all means nothing if we don’t have jobs.

In the past we have seen Qantas make some atrocious decisions that have taken away LAME jobs such as the closure of Sydney Heavy Maintenance, outsourcing of IFE work to two bit contractors who can’t even pay the reduced wage rates to their employees and the ditching of all customer work regardless of how profitable it had been. These decisions were made to the detriment of Qantas and we could not contest them in court because our EBA’s did not explicitly cover the matters. In our next EA we need to lock in Qantas work for Qantas LAMEs in binding clauses. Management have claimed that what we are seeking is inflexible and our response – too right it is. The clauses are designed to protect the airline from further poor management decisions, the decisions that today saw the Qantas share price drop below $1.90.

Yesterday I was contacted by a Qantas pilot. He gave me details of a friend who had been engaged by the airline as a consultant to do some work around the outsourcing of Qantas aircraft components. After looking at all the figures and reviewing the benefits/negatives of outsourcing the work, he advised them that the best option was to keep the work in-house. His consultancy with Qantas was thereby terminated because it was not the answer they were seeking. He claimed to be the third consultant to come to that conclusion, they were all terminated. From this example it has confirmed with us the problem we face negotiating an outcome with another party that appears not, or does not want to listen. However tight we can construct maintenance proposals that offer the best and most viable solution to the Qantas business, they want to take it to another place regardless of the evidence before them.
(My bolding)

If this ballot is not approved it will be likely that management will continue on it’s destructive path until their job is done. The ALAEA does not want to be in a position in five year’s time wondering why we did not act when we knew what was taking place. For those who were unable to get to membership meetings, the list below summarises the most important aspects of our job security claims –

Qantas LAMEs to carry out work on all new aircraft types (787 and 380)
No introduction of Cat A licences in our workplaces (currently covered by unenforceable side letter from last EBA)
No contractors to be employed unless they are paid the same wages and conditions as us (to take away the financial incentive for the company to bypass our agreement)
Continue to retain all existing job functions (recommitment to the existing clause and clarification of our current functions)
IFE work to be carried out in-house (to prevent another IASA fiasco)
Cheers
Steve Purvinas

airtags

8th Jun 2011, 01:14

Jethro - I believe that the reconfig project may be significantly slowed not least due to some important stages in the project scope that were accidently fogotten about but have MAJOR legislative implications....

Additionally, I'm reliably informed that the little bloke may have been given a (not too detailed) heads up that all is not good on the project's financials - and that the cost blowout is so ugly that it will require a James Packer One-Tel style moment with the board.

The latter of which will need to be done fairly quickly before the number leaks out further and the terrain warning sounds on the share price- I suspect however he'll try to hold out to post 30 June and carry fwd the hit (my guess only)

The upside is that this latest management crash & burn performance may actually give the Fed Sec & Co a little more range???

AT

ampclamp

8th Jun 2011, 03:16

Nothing piques a shareholders interest more than a crumbling share price.
There will be sacrifice if it continues. There must be. The chair and CEO at least and I say so as a shareholder.
A weak share price makes raising capital more difficult and dilutionary and weak earnings may lead to ratings downgrades making debt more expensive.

SpannerTwister

8th Jun 2011, 03:56

Fair Work Australia has granted ALL Australian workers on award rates a pay increase of 3.4%.

I can see no reason why Qantas LAMEs covered by our EBA shouldn't receive the same benefit.

Our STARTING point for negotiations should now be 3.4%.

Qantas had the chance, but missed the boat, to negotiate at the 3% level, but now that FWA has set the benchmark at 3.4% I can see no reason why we should settle for any less.

All award-rate employers have to pay the 3.4% regardless of their bleeting about the ability (or otherwise) to pay, I see no reason why QE should treat us any differently.

ST

SpannerTwister

8th Jun 2011, 04:00

37% of people who read this will cut and paste it as their Facebook status, will you post it as your Facebook status for at least one hour ?

If not, will you at least Cut And Paste the above post and email it to your work address and then send it to all your other LAME friends at work ?

ST

Bootstrap1

8th Jun 2011, 04:07

Spanner, as Steve as mentioned before 3%, 3.4% or a 100% pay rise will mean diddly squat if Joyce is allowed to keep destroying the company until there is nothing left.

SpannerTwister

8th Jun 2011, 04:42

Spanner, as Steve as mentioned before 3%, 3.4% or a 100% pay rise will mean diddly squat if Joyce is allowed to keep destroying the company until there is nothing left.
Not arguing about that but are you saying we shouldn't put in any pay claim ?

If you think we should put in some pay claim, what would you suggest it be ?

ST

B.U.F.F.

8th Jun 2011, 11:20

Has the CEO really lost the plot by degrading the very company he is charge of in front of the competition.
They must actually be laughing their way out the door.
If you heard what he is reported to have said, wouldn't you go back to the office gather the faithful and come up with a plan to sink the knife in all the way to the hilt and twist.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Shareholder revolt coming.

The workers can very rarely ever shut down a company, however incompetent management does it all the time.

the rim

8th Jun 2011, 11:34

hey guys I have just posted on "pilots"thread what are we doing running around like chooks with their heads cut off...stay carm the ALAEA and AIPA have it in hand let them do the work and like I said stay carm look to the front and smile we only look like mugs on here saying things like dead bodies floating past ...come on let us act like LAME's not like mugs....the rim

ALAEA Fed Sec

8th Jun 2011, 11:49

ST our wages claim went in 6 months ago. We are not trying to work it out now. I appreciate your passion but you don't ever negotiate by walking in and saying that we want at least 3.4% pa. When you sell a car you don't say you want at least 20 grand for it. They ain't gunna give you 22 grand or 4% wage rises negotiating from the bottom.

SpannerTwister

8th Jun 2011, 13:05

That's a fair call Steve, but as well as the job security clauses, I'm also going to be doing the sums carefully, and if the cash amount isn't at least 3.4% then it's a "No" vote from me.

Completely understand your point that $1,000 week increase means SFA if we don't have a job, but by the same token having a job means SFA if we don't have sufficient pay.

I need both, the dollars to pay my mortgage this week and the job security to pay the mortgage next week.

Well, That's my two-bobs worth.

ST

griffin one

8th Jun 2011, 13:42

ST
actually i would give up any pay rise for at least three years if this company would commit to building hangers and bringing jobs back on shore, think of the future and the ame,s waiting to become lames.

AWB_Clerk

8th Jun 2011, 14:03

griffin one
actually i would give up any pay rise for at least three years if this company would commit to building hangers and bringing jobs back on shore, think of the future and the ame,s waiting to become lames.

You would not be alone in that.

I would take job security/future over an extra 0.4% anyday.

AWBC

ALAEA Fed Sec

8th Jun 2011, 22:34

I suspect that most members would take a 12 month wage freeze if the board was replaced by a group of people who were actually interested in the future of Qantas.

Putting my dreams aside however the target today is a reasonable wage package and job security clauses to prevent the destruction.

ALAEA Fed Sec

8th Jun 2011, 22:59

Some photos I'd like to share -

Code Orange Images Set - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/itf/sets/72157626782326687/)

The Green Goblin

8th Jun 2011, 23:38

Phsychological warfare - love it!

I'd have green ones out next with leprechauns gracing the pages :)

Jethro Gibbs

9th Jun 2011, 01:40

Permanent positions available at Avalon Airport for B737NG LAME Mech and Av. Open to Aust and NZ Residents. Relocation assistance discussed.
Posted this Morning.:eek:
SEEK - VACANCY - B737-6/7/8/900(CFM56) Licenced Engineers Job in Geelong & Great Ocean Road (http://www.seek.com.au/Job/vacancy-b737-6-7-8-900-cfm56-licenced-engineers/in/geelong-great-ocean-road/19941981)

ALAEA Fed Sec

9th Jun 2011, 01:45

The 738 jobs at Avalon are a contingiency for threatened pia. There are no planned 738 checks in Avv for the rest of the year.

Jethro Gibbs

9th Jun 2011, 01:47

Permanent positions
So is this False Advertising ?

Nassensteins Monster

9th Jun 2011, 02:13

The beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

Most people prefer planes when bits don’t fall off

http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/avatars/uploads/avatar_399.jpg (http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/ross-neilson/)

by Ross Neilson (http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/ross-neilson/)
21 Nov 05:55am

By now there should be a persistent warning light flashing in the cockpit of the good ship Qantas. It’s indicating that a large mass of brand confidence among the Australian public is smouldering strongly, emitting smoke and may be about to drop off the starboard wing into the sea.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/a3eng.jpgA close-up of the stricken A380 in Singapore. Photo: AP
It used to be welded on but there’s definitely a crack appearing.
This week at Auspoll we thought it would be fascinating to test whether the recent run of technical problems which have plagued the Flying Kangaroo have made any tangible dent in our perception of the airline’s hitherto ‘safe as houses’ image. And it set the red light flashing.
It was Oscar Wilde who said ‘to lose one jet engine mid-flight may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose three looks like carelessness’. Well, he wasn’t talking about jet engines really, but a great many other people are in recent days. And his essential point holds; one incident we might shrug off, another almost immediately gets our close attention, but when we get a third hard on its heels there is a strong inclination to perceive a worrying wider problem.
Jet engines are things few of us want to talk about or think about generally. Much better when they’re boring because they just work flawlessly, first time, every time. What’s to talk about? But a certain route to water-cooler topicality is to explode and burn while attached to the wing of a huge airliner full of passengers 10,000 metres above the sea. Gets tongues wagging.
We surveyed 1,500 people across Australia and firstly asked them to rate a range of airlines according to their perception of how safe they are. Qantas can take some heart from this with 69% rating them either quite safe or very safe. Before they open champagne in the boardroom however, they might note that of the six rival airlines we asked people to rate, three of them ranked higher than Qantas. And the strongest score - 83% rating it safe - went to their pesky rival Virgin Blue.
There is another irritating dashboard alarm flashing in the negative responses to this question. For five of the six airlines, the proportions of people rating them quite unsafe or very unsafe ranged between 3% and 6%. The standout was (sound intermittent siren) Qantas – 21% of respondents felt it was unsafe.
Next we asked people outright whether the recent problems had affected their confidence in our national flagship airline. Only a minority of respondents said the incidents had not affected their confidence in Qantas at all, with 40% saying they had reduced it a little and a further 25% saying they had reduced it a lot. Overall, 65% less confident in the Red Roo than before.
We also asked what people thought of the expanding competition on overseas routes with the entry of new players such as the recently announced alliance of Virgin Blue and Etihad. Australians are keen travellers and pretty savvy about looking for value. A resounding 67% thought new competitors will improve things for those heading OS.
And lastly we asked whether the recent woes would make people more likely to choose a rival carrier over once trusty old Qantas. Almost half (48%) said the incidents would make no difference, but the 41% who said they would make them more likely to choose another carrier set off the last warning light on the console. That cockpit must look like a disco by now.
On these results, the appropriate disposition for Qantas senior management about now would be both alert and alarmed. Put the fire out, give everyone a drink. Panic never helps.

King William III

9th Jun 2011, 02:18

Griffin One wrote:
actually i would give up any pay rise for at least three years if this company would commit to building hangers and bringing jobs back on shore, think of the future and the ame,s waiting to become lames.

I'd happily drop all wage claims off the table and just leave the job security there…….:eek:

If nothing else it would give their Industrial Warfare Department a headache figuring out how the heck to bad mouth us!! :=

However, I have placed my trust in the ALAEA Exec and they did OK last time!!!
:D

Bumpfoh

9th Jun 2011, 07:45

Now evident that AJ has another previously unannounced qualification, ophthalmology!:ugh:

HF3000

9th Jun 2011, 07:55

That confirms it... A letter to Ben. Desperate indeed.

I note he doesn't refute any of the many other allegations Ben has made over the past few weeks regarding poor management of Qantas.

Nudlaug

9th Jun 2011, 10:08

I suspect that most members would take a 12 month wage freeze if the board was replaced by a group of people who were actually interested in the future of Qantas.

It's the only thing that'll make me stay in this company. Cause this board will run it into the ground something fierce, they haven't got the faintest idea what they are doing, it's criminal really....

:yuk:

tail wheel

10th Jun 2011, 05:04

I received a few messages asking where this thread had gone. I took it out of public view for a few hours to do a little editing of the "needless and irrelevant stuff".

As Australians, we respect the right of free speech, which PPRuNe encourages, but that does not extend to defamatory and libellous posts or derogatory posts or naming individuals. Whilst this is an anonymous forum, there are those that have learnt the hard way that no internet forum is truly anonymous.

This thread is being widely read, by both sides in the negotiations. The QF LAME EBA negotiations are an emotive issue, likely to inflame passions. Your point of view or opinion will be better put and may influence the negotiations if posted in a calm, rational and professional manner.

Thanks for your cooperation.

The Dunnunda Forum Mod Team.

Silverado

10th Jun 2011, 06:25

Just a reminder that the ballot result will be available on the Fair Work Australia website.

Ballot Results (http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=industrialballotsresult)

One Question to the Fed Sec, the order PR509920 (http://www.fwa.gov.au/awardsandorders/html/pr509920.htm) ballot close date, and the ballot paperwork provided closing date, don't match? is it 20 or 28 days after Order date.

The Bungeyed Bandit

10th Jun 2011, 08:34

Tail Wheel, your last message on other tread titled "? Missing Qantas engineers EBA thread" was one of true beauty.

tail wheel

10th Jun 2011, 08:42

That linked site should keep our friend busy for hours!!! :} :}

Didn't you notice his absence from this thread for some days? I fear his computer has a problem - it can't find this thread! :E

Jethro Gibbs

10th Jun 2011, 08:48

ALAEA Fed Sec you stated that The 738 jobs at Avalon are a contingiency for threatened pia.
How would that work is it not a fact that Forstaff employees cannot work without Qantas Lame supervision .

Worrals in the wilds

10th Jun 2011, 09:38

This thread is being widely read, by both sides in the negotiations.

That's nice to know. Maybe some information that isn't filtered by rank-hopping underlings into the standard 'it's all awesome, everyone loves Caesar' format will get through.

Or maybe not. I'm not a freediver so I'm not holding my breath. I've actually enjoyed a few of the offerings on the linked site myself :\:}...

Good luck LAMEs. I believe that by and large the industry's workers (as opposed to the move and shake/where's my next executive gig brigade) support you all. At the core the aviation industry is about transport, and maintaining the safe operation of the machines that do the transport is more important than all the branding, muffins, it's-not-a-maggot and $2 fares combined. It's been said that QF management would accept a hull loss as the cost of doin' business, but I hope that's more than the Australian public will ever accept, particularly if the causes were preventable. Your management constantly demonstrate via their media offerings that they have no idea how said machines work, so it's best they keep offering reasonable pay/conditions to those of you that do...

ALAEA Fed Sec

10th Jun 2011, 09:53

One Question to the Fed Sec, the order PR509920 (http://www.fwa.gov.au/awardsandorders/html/pr509920.htm) ballot close date, and the ballot paperwork provided closing date, don't match? is it 20 or 28 days after Order date.

I think the AEC can extend the time in the order. As I understand it closes on the 22nd. Cane someone please confirm that from the ballot letters?

ALAEA Fed Sec you stated that The 738 jobs at Avalon are a contingiency for threatened pia.
How would that work is it not a fact that Forstaff employees cannot work without Qantas Lame supervision .

I think the CASA rules require the Forstaff employees to report to a Qantas Supervisor. I could imagine a situation where all Avalon Qantas Supersisors stopped work, Qantas would roll out one of the managers who have the 738 ticket and designate her as the Supervisor for the day.

Silverado

10th Jun 2011, 10:51

Note in this order PR510262 (http://www.fwa.gov.au/awardsandorders/html/pr510262.htm) how the AEC varied the close date. However I see no such order on the FWA website with regards to the ALAEA vs QANTAS ballot.

ACT Crusader

10th Jun 2011, 12:01

Silverado - The '20 days' in the FWA order as I understand is 20 working days ie 4 weeks, so the date Fed Sec said (22 June) sounds about right given the order was issued on 25 May.

division1

11th Jun 2011, 07:12

Exactly what mine says,
not later than 10:00 am on Wednesday, 22 June.

Well, another YES vote in the mail.
Hoping for 100% returns showing our support for the executives plans.
Just too bad we need to belt management in the head again, but WTF,
they just don't get it, is less about money than the principles involved.
Many people are comming to the conclusion arseclowns have none.

Jet-A-One

11th Jun 2011, 09:24

All those that voted NO in the last ballot should consider, what puts us in a better bargaining position? Another 80% YES votes OR something closer to 100% in support of PIA.

Showing a united front with faith in those that represent us in the association gives us maximum clout and makes it less likely we'll have to resort to another destructive PIA.

Toolpants

11th Jun 2011, 19:34

From AJ’s recent antics and signs of desperation, I think he can hear his own funeral march playing. Does he plan to write to all reporters that bag him?

I wonder at what share price the death bell will ring for him. We must be getting close.

The Black Panther

13th Jun 2011, 00:32

More courses for the boys.
A 738 mechanical course position has recently been given to a DMM with a bully reputation. A second teir supervisor who understandably uses a pen instead of a spanner nowadays.

How will this be and economic benefit to the business. There were +5 other contenders who have worked well, have a high output are young and enthusiastic yet the contingency plans continue, it's basically a scab selection. You don't need to be type licensed to sign off a package.

The company will shout "we are entitled to have contingency plans" sure if you believe you will be having a fight. More waste, more inferior economic decisions to add to the list.

The buggery campaign continues.
Vote 'Yes'

poison pen

13th Jun 2011, 10:31

You are correct BP. This person should not be trusted with any information.

SP please take note.

The people this person surrounds himself with also cannot be trusted.

No goading here.

PP

Jethro Gibbs

14th Jun 2011, 06:33

Qantas jet refits secure 600 Avalon What a Load of tish this story is :ugh:
Qantas jet refits secure 600 Avalon jobs | Geelong, VIC, Australia (http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/06/13/263331_news.html)

Short_Circuit

14th Jun 2011, 06:46

And when the 9 off 744 are done, Geelong will loose 600 engineers & their families. That is a big financial loss to the region. :ugh:

Short_Circuit

14th Jun 2011, 07:18

Did I just hear Olivia Wirth correctly on the news saying, "you can't put a price on safety", onya girl.
Does this mean they (QF management) will stop the outsourcing for safety sake. :cool:

Ngineer

20th Jun 2011, 08:53

Vote should be out soon. Anyone heard any updates??

buttmonkey1

20th Jun 2011, 10:24

6 weeks now with the FWA umpire,
great progress being made. I think a
3% offer may be close to being offered.
Of course they can't comment on such
generosity just yet, all in good time...:yuk:

Jethro Gibbs

21st Jun 2011, 01:44

Posted today the allowances have gone up are we desperate
SEEK - JOB VACANCY - B747-400 LAME Fixed Term Job in Geelong & Great Ocean Road (http://www.seek.com.au/Job/job-vacancy-b747-400-lame-fixed-term/in/geelong-great-ocean-road/20021102)

qf 1

21st Jun 2011, 04:55

this lot must be joking $42.50p/hr for a Lame.Contracts 10yrs ago were going at about $60 p/hr in Asia.thats about a 33% percent decline in 10yrs while the cost of living has gone up about 40 %.WHO DO THEY THINK THEY WILL GET FOR THOSE RATES.:confused:

33 Disengage

22nd Jun 2011, 00:43

Huge day for Qantas as AJ and LC's plans for the destruction of Qantas pick up pace.

1. Trading in Qantas shares halted by the board so that annoucements of destruction can be made.
2. Due to increase of flying by Qlink in QLD, and the requirement of a larger fleet, LAMEs to be sacked in Brisbane, maintenance to be carried out by third parties and in Canberra.
3. Quality of offshore outsource facilities to be used by Qantas for, amoung other things, A380 slammed by FAA as inadequate and unsafe.
4. AJ to address Press Club in Canberra to put his spin into the media, before
5. Senate Report into Airline Safety and Training released.
6. LAME EBA PIA vote released by AEC.

BaronB

22nd Jun 2011, 02:08

so when does the ballot result come out? lets get it on

Jethro Gibbs

22nd Jun 2011, 02:11

so when does the ballot result come out ? think it will be to late very soon nothing will be left.

600ft-lb

22nd Jun 2011, 02:39

“In FY11, Qantas International is forecast to generate a loss before interest and tax of approximately $200
million, on invested capital of over $5 billion, with a weaker result expected next year.
“Qantas International is the Group’s weakest business – it has achieved required returns only three times in
the past 15 years. Clearly the situation is not sustainable. However, we are developing a long-term strategy
aimed at restoring competitiveness and profitability.
“We have a proud history and unmatched experience in international flying and will take the hard steps
necessary to turn this airline around. Our review of Qantas International is progressing in line with
expectations and we will announce plans for its strategic renewal later this year.”

http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20110622/pdf/01191221.pdf

It would be interesting to see if the $5billion in capital invested didn't include 90000+ hour 747's or dugongs. 2 engines are better then 4 when it comes to making money, or so literally every other airline has discovered in our region.

ALAEA Fed Sec

22nd Jun 2011, 04:45

Ballot results just phoned in. 81% in favour. 75% return rate. Well done all.

The Black Panther

22nd Jun 2011, 05:04

Bring it on! This will be the last stand.

AJ's undertones sniff of a maintenance partnership overseas of course.
We are too expensive for a global market with Australian wages. (As are the pilots)
Take a 30% pay cut or find another job or fight for what we built and want to keep for our children.

24th August 2011 Judgement Day

Silverado

22nd Jun 2011, 06:18

From the ALAEA

The ballot results were: (http://www.alaea.asn.au/notices/notices-2011/266-notice--37-all-qantas-members-ea-protected-action-ballot-results.html)

Ngineer

22nd Jun 2011, 06:37

Bring it on! This will be the last stand.

Agreed. Seems that we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Lets get Harry!!!!

Disengagement

22nd Jun 2011, 08:00

Is there any truth that old CEO GD has been paid $18 million by Qantas as a consultant since leaving with a $16 million hand shake . Think its more like not what you know its who you know . :mad:

The Black Panther

22nd Jun 2011, 08:41

I say "bring it on" but be patient between now and the 24th August. We need to ask the public do they want Australians maintaining Qantas aircraft or another nation with cheaper labor base.

That is the bottom line.

Plenty of time to get the message out there. I can think of some appointed statements for display in public display, social media, electronic media.

We are outsiders to win this battle without a doubt but giving up is not an option.

Slow and steady brothers.

600ft-lb

22nd Jun 2011, 09:29

The cynic in me would say the company has purposely been dragging out the 'negotiations' until this point when they are going to restructure the international business which somehow can't make money anymore, until August 24th at least.

But in the mean time they have backed themselves into a corner and won't want to lose face.

Clipped

22nd Jun 2011, 09:44

August 24 or thereabouts is significant to the '89 pilot's dispute, same week AFAP began industrial action.

Under Abeles, Ian Oldmeadow was one of the chief architects of the campaign to win over ACTU and ALP support to take down the pilots. James Strong was then CEO of TAA

Many familiar faces , eh.

Scaremongering by AJ and the Board? We have a hell of a fight on our hands but I am confident our strategists with help from the pilots, TWU and generally most staff, will help us prevail. Simply there are too many of us and too few of them.

Then again, this battle will be won or lost in Canberra.

ampclamp

22nd Jun 2011, 10:18

Then again, this battle will be won or lost in Canberra

Dead right 600ft lbs.

Qantas has plenty of media in their pockets and many of them just hate unions or at least give a good impression of those that do.
They also have plenty of tame pollies but with a Labor govt that is on the nose they will want to shore up support with the ACTU.

We have to be smart to win this.

Don't stuff around the public too much to have the Murdoch press whipping up anti union rhetoric and pushing anti union / Labor buttons in Canberra.

Quill Shaft

22nd Jun 2011, 10:23

Its time to put the Qantas Sales Act to test me thinks!

Intent has a lot of weight in contract law I believe. What was the intent of the Qantas Sales Act when it was put together all those years ago? Certainly not to offshore the International business

AIPA & ALAEA should prepare themselves to put the Act to the test come announcements on August 24th!!

The Black Panther

22nd Jun 2011, 19:16

"We still call Australia home, but no one from home maintains them"

'We still call Australia home but no one from home flies our aircraft:

"We still call Australia home but....

King William III

23rd Jun 2011, 00:38

It's hardly going to feel like an 'Strayen carrier when the man at the door greets you in a clipped English accent (British Airways?) the captain's announcement is a mildly understandable Chinese accent ( Cathay?) and you are served by a lovely Singapore Girl………

And that's just on the non-code share flights………..

Personally, when I got on a Qantas flight in London, JFK or LAX I felt i was 'nearly' home…..the familiarity of the accents and mannerisms etc put me at ease and made home feel closer and was worth a few extra bucks.

In AJ's brave new cheap world I may as well fly Emirates…at least they employ some Aussie ex-pats!!

Honestly Alan, just because your homeland is a bankrupt wasteland doesn't mean you need to create it everywhere else you go…..if you're homesick just f#$# off back there!! :ugh:

rodchucker

23rd Jun 2011, 01:26

As much as I don't like to say it, if this is what he wants then how is Canberra going to refuse to open up Oz skies to all and anyone especially SIA.The Rat does not deserve its privileged position any more.

This lot are playing brinkmanship when they really have no skin in the game as they get paid win, lose or draw.

Agree they should all just disappear up some plug hole from where we never have to hear or see them again.

PIOT Bord

23rd Jun 2011, 01:33

A good result!

More LAMEs returned a vote, with an increased percentage supporting the ALAEA negotiating team. (And this vote included the LAMEs that QF thought would be more "pro company").

AJ, the clock keeps ticking down towards 24 August. The market didn't buy your spin yesterday and won't buy it again on the 24 August if you don't have agreements settled with both engineers and pilots. You are rapidly losing the "investment grade" status of the company! Tell Ianmeadow to start negotiating.

Millet Fanger

23rd Jun 2011, 05:40

QF shares have dropped 40% since you decided to go to war with QF employees, Alan.

I'll concede that one or two other issues are also involved (i.e. fuel, ash clouds) but primarily it's a vote of no confidence in management.

Stop trashing the brand, take safety seriously, engage with the 'turdy five tousand' employees that QF have.

Sunfish

23rd Jun 2011, 05:46

$1.79 - the market doesn't believe Jetstar profitability fairy stories either.

opalops

23rd Jun 2011, 07:53

King William III

Personally, when I got on a Qantas flight in London, JFK or LAX I felt i was 'nearly' home…..the familiarity of the accents and mannerisms etc put me at ease and made home feel closer and was worth a few extra bucks.

That is exactly how i USE to feel

MEA332

23rd Jun 2011, 07:57

How Could you sleep at night (in Australia) when 35,000 staff members do NOT like you?

How do you feel when you see all the negative comments made about you in today's SMH by the flying public?

Do you feel cheated when the flying public get a sub-standard service compared to other operators flying into Sydney and you continue to charge a premium?

The public is screaming for better aircraft cabins and IFE and you come out and proudly say "We are not spending anymore money on the International Business until it returns a profit" You idiot, have you heard of "return on investment?" You need to spend money before you can make money! Drop off the top 10 list and you will never be a winner!

You are not a CEO, you are a thief, you and Dixon!

The Black Panther

23rd Jun 2011, 09:25

The question remains will Joyce have the guts to respond to this article?
_______________________________________________________

The commentary Qantas CEO Alan Joyce gave yesterday concerning the restructuring of its international services means August 24, when all is revealed, will be a flag lowering day, a bloody day, with the loss of experienced pilot jobs and a retreat from poorly performing routes after what he promised would be a review made with ‘ruthless but honest’ eyes.
If ‘honesty’ is at play in these decisions, much more detail is required.
Just how much has the claimed poor performance of an airline Australians expect to service their links to the world been a consequence of gifting jets and other benefits from the full service brands to the Jetstar brands?
How much of it has been poor fleet and route decisions, which have seen Australians choosing faster and easier trips on other carriers, even if, as sometimes happens, they pay Emirates, Singapore Airlines or other competitors slightly more for their services?
Surely it has cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the $200 million Joyce predicts Qantas international will lose in the year to June 30, a situation so bad he says it threatens the very existence of Qantas as a group.
It is rare for Qantas to reveal the performance of its passenger carrying brands in isolation from each other.
Investors are told how much the so called ‘loyalty’ program makes from selling frequent flyer points to people selling petrol, groceries and or running card programs, but as a matter of policy, the actual figures for Qantas domestic, Qantaslink, Qantas international, and the Jetstar franchises, are mix mastered into a blend as commercial-in-confidence.
But not yesterday. At a National Press Club luncheon at which reporters asked the most obsequious and feeble questions Joyce has probably faced in his career, he said the overseas full service operation would loose $200 million on a $5 billion investment.
While the cross subsidisation of Jetstar by Qantas is a zero sum game for investors, it is also the dark matter that distorts the visible Qantas universe.
When investors, and government, and employees, are told that Jetstar is the highly profitable growth engine of Qantas group operations, they are kept in ignorance as to how well Jetstar and the full service brands would perform if billions of dollars worth of Airbuses, much of their fuel, and some of the maintenance, training and other costs of Jetstar were reported on a divisional basis, rather than blended into a mystery pudding.
These figures are also important because without them, the slaughter that is coming to Qantas long haul cannot be truly assessed by the investment community as a brilliant strategy, or as a potential disaster for the Qantas brand and its future.
Whatever the fiscal truth about Jetstar, and there is no denying its success in winning low fare customers (but discouraging higher yielding passengers) it is not a $10 million dollar seed capital venture like Virgin Blue, which took and kept more than 30 per cent of the domestic market.
Instead, Jetstar has been a massively costly exercise for Qantas. A very successful exercise, but one lacking in transparency in terms of the relative performances of all the Qantas divisions if their costs and assets are fully accounted for.
How real is the $200 million loss for Qantas international? Not only is that under a cloud, but so are management decisions that would easily account for that $200 million in botched fleet decisions, uncompetitive product, and appalling network and schedule strategies.
It is almost as if Qantas international has been robbed of assets and set up to fail.
Qantas is considering a number of international options. Its impending embrace of more joint business ventures with other carriers is widely admired in other markets where it has been used to deliver benefits to investors and consumers alike. It is precisely what Virgin Australia is doing with its ventures with Singapore Airlines, Etihad, Delta Airlines and Air New Zealand.
However going on recent decisions, those deals only get regulatory approval in Australia and abroad if there is a guarantee by the parties to maintain existing capacity, rather than reduce their combined operations.
The other card Qantas has showed is the off-shoring of activities in which a controlled or financed subsidiary based in Singapore, or Kuala Lumpur, or perhaps Shanghai, takes over some of the flying Qantas does to and from Australia at lower wages and conditions, as well as participating in traffic originating in the region hosting the enterprise.
This comes with risks on a scale comparable to those Qantas is seeking to retire by quitting some of its loss making Australian based long haul flying.
Two things may happen to Australian forays into strongly defended Asian markets. They may get eaten alive by the established national competitors, whether breweries, or factories, or distributors, or airlines, or eaten alive by them as supposedly equal partners in a common venture.
Qantas has already revealed its hand in relation to flying costs at Jetstar, proposing a labor sharing arrangement in which pilots from its Asia based and New Zealand franchises could also be shifted into Australia for duty tours, for the terms and conditions under which they are employed in their home countries.
The emphasis Qantas is placing on solving its international underperformance is good. But are the answers rigged?
This report first appeared in today’s Crickey Daily Mail bulletin

Qantas should disclose true Jetstar figures before the August 24 restructure | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/23/qantas-figures-need-more-clarity-before-the-august-24-restructure/#comments)

the rim

23rd Jun 2011, 12:25

yes BP will he have the guts to answer it....I dont think so he will let it hang till aug 24th...we all wait to see what happens,yet we still ask what do they WANT shhhhhhh I cannot hear you.....the rim

HARDNUT

23rd Jun 2011, 13:21

Very creative accounting indeed.:D:D

flystraight

23rd Jun 2011, 15:00

Try this link for the increase in international visitor to NSW, both Sydney and Melbourne figures show an increase in the number of international passengers and is still growing. The data indicates that the airline has lost a lot of market share which has happened while the pilots and lames were still under EBA's . There is only one conclusion to this and that is that management has not run the airline to provide customer service to the satisfaction of their customers, so they have walked to other airlines to get it. This is only one link but a google of the data shows that monthly figures have been increasing on all major ports in Australia at different rates but are still going up and have been for white some time. Google a recent SMH article on the same info has a lot of information that is also relevent :ugh:

http://corporate.tourism.nsw.gov.au/Sites/SiteID6/objLib19/IVS_snapshot_YEMar11.pdf

hewlett

23rd Jun 2011, 20:28

From another thread. A radio interview with the pilots after Al's inspiring address.On the money!
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/20110622-pilots.mp3

Bigdog01

23rd Jun 2011, 23:09

The so called sale of Qantas by Geoff started the demise, financial down grades and the formation of LCC. Hide all set up costs within the main group, pull of routes to grow the LCC. Hand over aircraft initially purchased to improve /upgrade domestic travel ( oops wrong type didn't read the fine print A330 - 200 long haul not suitable for short stuff).
Line up pay money for new types A380 & 787 - we've all seen the results of that decision, grounded after failure and can't get off the ground.

Every time AJ opens his mouth these days and mentions iconic brand he relates to Ansett. As CEO shouldn't he use this as a model of what not to do, but he seems hell bent on putting his feet in the foot prints left in the ashes.

Could his predecessors have made poor aircraft choices - YES.
Okay how much will it cost to continue down this path as opposed to bail out and get the right aircraft ?

The Sunstate **** fight started because we wanted an extra 1.3% more than they wanted to pay and 1 week extra holidays for the permanent night shift engineers. Which other operators/industries give quite happily.

QLink have now decided to cut the workforce from 37 engineers a little over 12 months ago to 10 LAME's and an undisclosed number of AME's, T/A's. This at probably one of the busiest turnaround hubs in the regional market. Obviously the aircraft will be maintained so thoroughly by the 3rd party maintenance that they will never breakdown coming or going from this port. Birds will not get in the way of these aircraft and lightning will not hit them.
Plus more aircraft coming.

Ngineer

23rd Jun 2011, 23:43

Judging by the comments on this (and other) threads, AJ has not been successful in pulling the wool over anyones eyes.

I beleive it's time for him to save face and stop wasting investor's money.

hewlett

23rd Jun 2011, 23:43

Speculation Only.August 23. A slow or (fast?)transition to the Asian hubs for QF International. All Int heavy maint/minor maint performed os (380 and "the game changer") (after 744 retired).Sydney Base wound down and all oz ports become line stops only for the "feeder a/c". Excess engineering staff from Int and "Lame on Demand" to support Dom o/night servicing.White collar airline support staff numbers reduced dramatically, management numbers reduced dramatically, income tax revenue reduced dramatically, aussie jobs reduced dramatically, exec bonuses thru the roof, a plan hatched well before Joyce.The original rat dies a painfull death in the asian playground.Virgin goes gangbusters with better product.Jester loses its support system and oil prices go up.Comments?

Jet-A-One

24th Jun 2011, 00:53

QF announce plans to start offshore international mainline hub. Most likely in Malaysia, including MAS major maintenance alliance MRO. "QANTASIA" - overseas base, overseas crewed and overseas maintained and registered aircraft but still happy to have Spirit of Australia scrawled down the side. They'll claim it's just to supplement AUS based international mainline but it will eventually take over like Jet* with all the profitable routes and all the new aircraft. :ugh:

MEA332

24th Jun 2011, 05:45

Might as well give Emirates Airlines the title, "the new, Spirit of Australia" Since they sponser Australian events and are increasing international flights in-out of Australia.

Wont be long before Virgin is flying the flag!

blubak

24th Jun 2011, 22:19

All,
have a read of the Borghetti interview in the current AUSTRALIAN AVIATION.
Have a look at his picture-dressed to perfection,an image that sets him apart as a ceo,read his answers to the many questions he was asked,take note of his views on what it means to have the word AUSTRALIA painted on his aircraft and read his views on how important the staff are and how he listens to opinions and ideas from them.
It is unbelievable that this guy is able to recognise the value of employees,take their ideas on board & also know how to get the best out of people,yet he was'nt good enough to be offered a CEO title a couple of years ago at a company that also professes to be 'AUSTRALIAN'.
The current managment of that other "AUSTRALIAN' company should be reading his interview very carefully and they should hang their heads in shame for what they are trying to do.They should also remember that the flying public are not fools & that they are now awake to what is actually going on & not fooled by the on going media stunts & constant negativity.

howyoulikethat

25th Jun 2011, 08:35

Sorry to rain on your parade,but dealt with Borgetti in a delay situation when he was a Qf and I can tell you his people skills left a lot to be desired....if ya think he's the shining light be very very careful!:=

Quill Shaft

25th Jun 2011, 17:46

Qantas Sales Act

Part of the act reads as follows:

Quote:
(e)
prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and
(f)
prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled International air transport passenger services under a name other than:
(i)
its company name; or
(ii)
a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"; and
(g)
require that the head office of Qantas always be located in Australia; and
(h)
require that of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled international air transport services (for example, facilities for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration), the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas; and
(i)
require that, at all times, at least two-thirds of the directors of Qantas are to be Australian citizens; and
(j)
require that, at a meeting of the board of directors of Qantas, the director presiding at the meeting (however described) must be an Australian citizen; and
(k)
prohibit Qantas, at all times, from taking any action to become incorporated outside Australia.

I think paragraph h) would be able to be put to the test in court for any planned total offshoring of QF International. In particular "used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled International air transport services"

Surely it can't be argued that JQ and its employees contribute to the aggregate mentioned in the act.?

As far as I am aware, JQ use the old IMPULSE airways AOC (domestically anyway). Also due to it being a subsidiary, JQ can be sold at any time without complying to the Act, so how can it be used in the aggregate calculation? Frequent Flyer also a subsidary.

Also JQ only have at this stage around 10 A330's and some A320's making International services.

Care to comment anyone?

ALAEA Fed Sec

26th Jun 2011, 23:40

Everyone ready to rumble?

The Black Panther

26th Jun 2011, 23:42

Await your commands....William Wallace

YOSHI

27th Jun 2011, 00:24

Let the Games begin!!!

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 00:40

We'll built spears..........hundreds of them........twice as long as a man.......

Jethro Gibbs

27th Jun 2011, 01:38

Why is FORSTAFF Advertiseing Positions thought we had less work ?

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 03:00

Notification number

1

Date of commencement of action

Monday 4th July 2011.

Time of action

The first 2 hours of any regularly rostered shift that commences between 0100 and midday of that day.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members who are rostered to commence work in Melbourne Line Maintenance.

Nature of action

A 2 hour work stoppage.

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 03:01

Notification number

2

Date of commencement of action

Ongoing from Monday 4th July 2011 and until further notice.

Time of action

From 2 AM.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members from all sections across Australia.

Nature of action

A ban on the working of overtime on any day that the individual undertaking the action had been rostered for regular duty. This action shall not include overtime built into regular roster patterns or overtime carried out by those in Supervisory/Senior LAME positions for handover purposes. This action shall not prevent individuals carrying out overtime on a call in basis on days where that individual is rostered off.

Clipped

27th Jun 2011, 03:15

Brilliant.

A steady-as-she-goes campaign that will keep them guessing at every turn.

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 03:55

Monday 27 June 2011

Qantas Engineers Union to Provide their own Strike-breakers

Qantas engineers today have announced a novel plan to take strike action against the airline without disrupting airline passengers. They have advised Qantas that they will make available strike-breakers from within their membership ranks to cover all planned work stoppages.

The union has offered to make the workers available from those members who are rostered off duty and able to work overtime during the stoppage periods. The concept of a union deliberately supplying strike-breakers against their own members appears to be an Australian first.

ALAEA Federal Secretary Steve Purvinas said that “first and foremost was the needs of the customer, our beef is not with them, it’s with the current airline management team”.

“The concept would add financial cost to the carrier as they would be required to pay overtime rates to replace workers who would be docked a single time hourly rate. It does however work out cheaper than the $5000 per week Qantas are currently offering alternative workers and we know that safety won’t be affected because the regular employees would be working the overtime”.

Purvinas explained that the offer to provide strike-breakers from within the union places the heat fairly and squarely on Qantas’s shoulders. If they don’t accept the offer and services are disrupted as a result, it would be due to a decision of the airline and not the actions of the union.

“We’ve also advised the Government of our approach, we think it important that it is clear that the Australian national interest would be catered for with our campaign by making options available for Qantas to avoid disruptions.”

“It’s unfortunate that our negotiations have been unsuccessful, 1600 members would love to come to work with a smile on their faces once again knowing that the attack on their livelihoods was over and the airline was headed by a CEO who was as proud of Qantas as they are.”

The main issues in dispute between Qantas and the Engineers relate to the retention of existing aircraft safety checks by Licensed Engineers and the growing amount of work carried out by overseas providers and contractors. Two hour work stoppages begin in Melbourne next Monday morning.

blackbook

27th Jun 2011, 05:10

Nice strategy

bandit2

27th Jun 2011, 05:21

Sensational!! Keep those P$%^#s guessing!

ampclamp

27th Jun 2011, 05:22

Innovative to say the least.
Hope they choke on their weeties reading that one.

blackhander

27th Jun 2011, 05:23

Four hour call in at double time to cover for two hour stop work at single time. I like it. :ok:

BrissySparkyCoit

27th Jun 2011, 05:48

...and the ALAEA will actually be saving the company money! Last time, they had to fork out $100,000 per strikebreaker for six months!!! Bringing in LAME's on their day off to cover has gotta be cheaper!

Qantas 'offers $100k to strike-breakers' - National - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/qantas-offers-100k-to-strikebreakers/2007/12/24/1198344952894.html)

another superlame

27th Jun 2011, 06:08

Genius.

I hope it works.

ACT Crusader

27th Jun 2011, 06:18

questions4you2007

27th Jun 2011, 06:25

Love it :cool:

BrissySparkyCoit

27th Jun 2011, 06:28

Would there be many LAMEs floating around looking for some quick dollars out of this?

Re-read post #1131

Bootstrap1

27th Jun 2011, 07:26

Any truth to the rumour of 250 LAMEs company wide to be offered a golden handshake?

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 07:36

That's what Qantas want.

bandit2

27th Jun 2011, 08:02

I`m sure there`s more than 250 LAME`s that have had a gut full of the bulls&%t. But, the more LAME`s that fight this out, the closer to the door Joyce & the board get. The longer Qantas will live on also. Maintain the rage!!!

lamem

27th Jun 2011, 08:13

The problem with redundances is that there will be a thousand engineers fighting for the 250 positions. Almost everybody will have a look at the money and the smart ones will run with it.

ampclamp

27th Jun 2011, 08:16

They wont offer VR until the EBA is settled imho cos they don't know how it will turn out or know how many LAMEs they will really need. That combined with the new regs does complicate things for all.

I know plenty who would walk.

savage1qan

27th Jun 2011, 08:52

This is a bit of a harsh one on the Heavy Maintenance guys, seems like a dream run for line. A simple roster "swap" by individuals would see line guys pick up a lot of extra cash. It seems like heavy maintenance guys will be cut off at the knee's and be boxing on over a weekend shift, I think this one should be thought out a bit more or changed to effect only certain locations. This PIA will be detrimental to members in heavy. :eek:

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 08:59

It seems like heavy maintenance guys will be cut off at the knee's and be boxing on over a weekend shift

Relax brother. We know what will happen with this action and you are not the one walking off the job. It's not a matter of who hurts most, its about protecting all our jobs.

savage1qan

27th Jun 2011, 09:20

Just a thought, we are all fighting for our jobs...

sky rocket

27th Jun 2011, 10:08

It's the board members that will be fighting for their jobs.:ok:

teresa green

27th Jun 2011, 11:57

The rolling strikes start next week as just announced in the Australian. THIS is the time for the public to be made aware of what is actually happening. Perhaps its also time for the pilots to join them. "We cannot continue to see the company go downhill under this board and management we the pilots and engineers are determined to save the company blah de dah de dah." Over to you fellas, time to unite?

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jun 2011, 12:03

Pilot ballot closes in a few days. It's just us for a few weeks.

hiwaytohell

27th Jun 2011, 14:21

It is all so very 1989, and look how that turned out!

TBM-Legend

27th Jun 2011, 14:32

Quick, call Brian McC. for advice....the Moses of '89:}

Bad to the bone

27th Jun 2011, 17:58

Ma !, get ma gun seems there's trouble brewin' and Pappy is a dab hand at hunting possums.

airsupport

27th Jun 2011, 19:51

How exactly are rolling strikes going to save the Company? :confused:

They will certainly upset the paying Customers.

hi-speed tape

27th Jun 2011, 20:44

Stop work meetings. Not rolling strikes.

airsupport

27th Jun 2011, 20:51

Well obviously that is not as bad, but the initial post is wrong then.

Still cannot see how it is going to save the Company. :confused:

hi-speed tape

27th Jun 2011, 21:06

So far, stop work meetings of 2 hours (not strikes, rolling or otherwise) & QF have the option of calling in rostered off personnel to cover for the shortfall in manpower.
If the company do this then no disruption to the customer plus cheaper for them than employing "scabs".
Can't get much fairer than that I would guess, so to use the terms with strike attatched is a little harsh on the Engineers.

BrissySparkyCoit

27th Jun 2011, 21:40

Airsupport..... what is going to save the company? How about investing in advertising, product, an end to jetstar canibalisation and executive remunaration that is a true reflection of company performance.

While we are at it, there is no STRIKE action taking place.

airsupport

27th Jun 2011, 21:47

Okay, well don't go crook at me, the initial post said rolling strikes. :confused:

Mind you I can NOT see how ANY kind of industrial action is going to SAVE the Company. :confused:

Sunfish

27th Jun 2011, 21:56

Airsupport:

Mind you I can NOT see how ANY kind of industrial action is going to SAVE the Company.

Mate, you could offer to work for five cents an hour and it would make no difference. Managements minds are made up. It is not about money, it's about power and control. They don't like to be shown up. They want compliant little Asian people who don't talk back.

Coppabella

27th Jun 2011, 22:00

If some of you misinformed posters would care to do some research re 89.

QF Engineers are not going on strike they are taking Protected Industrial Action.
Lawful action ratified by Fair Work Australia.

airsupport

27th Jun 2011, 22:08

Very sad if that is true, however I still don't see how industrial action will improve the situation. :confused:

Anyway now someone has moved this new thread to an old one I have lost interest. :ugh:

Dockie

28th Jun 2011, 00:11

It staggers me how our "management" can blatantly lie to the media without even blinking. Can you tell that I have zero respect for our current "management"? Bring it on!!:O

BrissySparkyCoit

28th Jun 2011, 00:32

Airsupport I think you are missing the point. The company wouldn't need "saving" if it were not being mis-managed.

VBPCGUY

28th Jun 2011, 01:16

Quick, call Brian McC. for advice....the Moses of '89http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Busy flying VA aircraft LOL

The Black Panther

28th Jun 2011, 01:48

In yesterday's media release this was written.

"Mr Strambi said the union leaders had shown their true colours by calling industrial action over the school holidays and then making a blatantly cynical offer for Qantas licensed engineers who are on strike to return to work for four times their normal pay."

Sure we are having an industrial fight but straight off the bat they start lying (again).
So far we've had 26% = 3% x 3yrs
$300 - $400 million claim
Free Qantas Club membership
Now 300% penalty rates

Some media has written the correct information in that it is overtime at double rates.

SP - What is the reply when you raise questions about statements like these? Why do they bother with ethic units in university degrees?

600ft-lb

28th Jun 2011, 02:52

There will always be a caveat to 'striking'
School holidays
Ash clouds
Public holidays
Friday afternoons
Monday mornings
Little Johnny wants to watch his football team play

Regardless they are going to make a press release stating how;

..irresponsible it is to strike now and showing their true colours due to <insert imminent event here> and disrupting <100s/1000s/10000s/100000s/billions> and causing untold damage to <country/airline/industry/football>. Qantas refuses to negotiate with <terrorists/kamikazes/union thugs/Steve Purvinas>. Their total wage claim is <10%/free Qantas club access/40%/free Chairman's club access/180%> over <6months/1year/3years>. We've negotiated in <insert faith level here> for <minimum EBA negotiation time here (usually 2 years)>. We have no choice but to set up a base in <Malaysia/Singapore/Bali>. Qantas has lost <100million/200million/500million/6billion> this <month/year>.I mean, why tell the truth when the media is just a repeater of PR spin.
Media =/= truth.
"Journalism" = dead.

ALAEA Fed Sec

28th Jun 2011, 09:44

Notification number

3

Date of commencement of action

Tuesday 5th July 2011.

Time of action

The first 2 hours of any regularly rostered shift that commences between 0100 and midday of that day.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members who are rostered to commence work in Perth Line Maintenance.

Nature of action

A 2 hour work stoppage.

WheelsandBrakes

28th Jun 2011, 09:50

Great to see Ch 10 news journalists in QF's pocket. :mad:

Ngineer

28th Jun 2011, 10:47

10 bucks this round will go 16 weeks or so. I don't think this mob we are up against are as bright as the last ones.:}

ampclamp

28th Jun 2011, 11:26

airsupport, who suggested having 2 hour stop work meetings were designed to save the company? Purely an instrument to assist in gaining their attention. May or may not work but if you don't fight , you lose. Yes things need to change but on whose terms? :ok:

airsupport

28th Jun 2011, 20:09

As I tried to point out earlier, this makes NO sense now as someone has merged the thread I replied to into this one. :ugh:

The original was...............

Ok, its game on for Engineers v QF

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

The rolling strikes start next week as just announced in the Australian. THIS is the time for the public to be made aware of what is actually happening. Perhaps its also time for the pilots to join them. "We cannot continue to see the company go downhill under this board and management we the pilots and engineers are determined to save the company blah de dah de dah." Over to you fellas, time to unite?

This infered there were to be rolling strikes to save the Company. :confused:

ACT Crusader

29th Jun 2011, 08:02

Ben sandilands piece in Crikey today

Qantas ‘strike’ theatrics need closer examination

June 29, 2011 – 12:34 pm, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)

In a news environment in which the public generally wants the story in 30 seconds, the risk of ‘strikes’ at Qantas during the mid year school holidays being reported in emotive rather than factual terms is high.
Consider the headlines this morning about the licensed engineers taking strike action next Monday and Tuesday.

The ALAEA (Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association) is in fact taking protected industrial action with the approval of Fair Work Australia, under legislation which required it to overcome a series of legal hurdles designed specifically to prevent strikes of a scale and duration across all industries which historically severely damaged the national economy and public interest for much of the second half of the last century.

The ALAEA is also doing this as a consequence of no settlement of its dispute with Qantas over a new EBA having been reached despite the fact that both sides are dealing with an agreement of finite duration during which there was ample time to resolve differences.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the union side is completely right, or the management side completely wrong. It isn’t necessary for the public or Qantas investors to agree unreservedly with either side to work out that something is going badly wrong at Qantas. But it is necessary for far more details to be offered, and for questions to be asked about the elephant-in-the-room, which is the disclosure by Qantas that on August 24 it will announce a significant restructuring of what it claims are unsustainable international full service brand operations that threaten the very existence of the airline if it is not turned into an airline for the times, meaning the global competitive environment in which its competitors are thriving, and it is failing.

It may be that the only decent and reasonable thing for the ALAEA to do is work for nothing, and that its central claim, which is about job security rather than money, is totally absurd, and all Qantas maintenance work should be carried out in cheap workshops like those of Lufthansa Technik in Manila, which has recently been unfavorably reviewed by US authorities.

Sarcasm aside, Qantas deserves an opportunity to explain more lucidly than it has so far, why it handed control over something as central to its brand reputation for safety excellence as engine overhauls to an external third party, or even the manufacturer, as it did in the case of those nice but somewhat secretive people at Rolls-Royce, who didn’t see any need to keep it informed about certain minor issues with the Trent 900 engines on its A380s for example.

That’s one of the powerful arguments for virtual airlines, where you sell the brand but no longer take any responsibility for what supports the brand with third party total care contracts. You get to save money, remove a whole tier of experienced and knowledgeable people with their pesky traditions of standards, and all is well, until something blows up, as it did on QF32 last November.

That said, Qantas does confront some very serious disadvantages from its foreign competitors. They are not only smarter when it comes to scheduling and route structures and fleet choices, all areas where Qantas has been severely disadvantaged by better offerings, but advantaged by lower costs.

Those cost advantages are real, but they vary in nature. Emirates and Etihad don’t pay tax, and their workers don’t pay tax, which is a huge advantage. However Singapore Airlines, which does pay tax at the corporate and personal level, and does pay even more in the form of superannuation contributions, does have something that neither Emirates nor Qantas enjoy, which is aggressive depreciation allowances.

If it chooses, Singapore Airlines can use depreciation to make the Singaporean economy pay for its fleet investments over a short period of time. There is a good case to be made for Qantas (and Virgin Australia) to have access to aggressive depreciation schedules for fleet investments however there are other ways to minimise that problem through the use of lease deals and other structures.

It is reasonable to assume that a factor in Qantas pursuing off-shore arrangements or entities like Jetstar Asia is reducing its exposure to the lesser depreciation benefits of Australian fleet, as well as avoiding Australian labor terms and conditions.

To fully understand what Qantas has in store for its customers, its investors and its employees on August 24, it needs to reveal the true performance of its full service brands taking into account the gifting or transfer of aircraft and critical costs from them to its Jetstar franchise.
To date the guidance from Qantas seems more like an excuse for a poor performance, and a demonisation of its employees as renegades or kamikaze pilots when they have done nothing more than avail themselves of the industrial law of the land.

It also seem reasonable for the unions to consider ceasing all protected industrial action until August 24, when Qantas reveals how many of their members will lose their jobs and how quickly it will rebrand its jets as something other than the ‘Spirit of Australia.’

600ft-lb

29th Jun 2011, 09:23

Ben won't get any Chairman's Club membership offers with balanced reporting like that.

Deck Zone

29th Jun 2011, 10:09

Guys, if nothing else when you go into this action, consider how it may affect you and your family life from here on in. Believe me, I've been there.

Can you afford no income for a period, or worse, no job. If it's no job, what can you do to support your family, home, lifestyle etc? Who will employ you knowing you took action againt Qantas. Give it very serious thought!!!!! :rolleyes:

ACT Crusader

29th Jun 2011, 10:32

Can you afford no income for a period, or worse, no job. If it's no job, what can you do to support your family, home, lifestyle etc? Who will employ you knowing you took action againt Qantas. Give it very serious thought!!!!!

Not sure jobs are under threat because of taking protected industrial action. There are several protections in the Fair Work Act for employees taking PIA

Deck Zone

29th Jun 2011, 10:42

Do you know what happened to the Patrick guys that were locked out a month or two ago??

600ft-lb

29th Jun 2011, 10:47

Deck Zone,

You seem very concerned about our action this time aruond.

You also seemed very concerned with our action last time around.

I think all LAME's should take a very deep breath, open your eyes and make a rational decision. If the decision is to fight this, you need to be prepared to fight to the death of your employment. That is a real possibility and you must accept this at the start.

If QF decides to take us on this time around, you know they've made a decision to go all the way. There will be no half measures like allowing LAME's to have 4 hour stoppages and bans. They have the advantage because they know how well the members have stuck together in the past. Solidarity has not been one of our strong points.

Consider how you'll survive with no income for an undetermined period of time. Are you or can you place yourself into this position and survive?

Prepare for the worst before leaping and we may come out the other side.

Good luck to all.

And interestingly, on a search of your username's previous posts, of which a lot of them have since been deleted, however the summary of your posts all are of a similar cautious tale.

Thanks for your concern

ACT Crusader

29th Jun 2011, 11:33

Do you know what happened to the Patrick guys that were locked out a month or two ago??

I think you'll find they weren't "locked out".

Maritime Union had bans on certain jobs going that as I understand rendered the ports inoperative. That's the attractiveness of the bans I guess. Patricks don't have to accept the bans and didn't and some workers weren't paid according to the press.

ALAEA have stop work going, not limitations on certain roles. If LAMEs work 8 hours then they'll get paid for 6. Simple as that.

ALAEA Fed Sec

30th Jun 2011, 00:48

Notification number

4

Date of commencement of action

Wednesday 6th July 2011.

Time of action

The first 2 hours of any regularly rostered shift that commences between 0100 and midday of that day.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members who are rostered to commence work in Brisbane Line Maintenance.

Nature of action

A 2 hour work stoppage.

Ngineer

30th Jun 2011, 01:25

Can you afford no income for a period, or worse, no job.

Mr Deck zone, couldn't agree more buddy!! And thats why we are taking this action, just in-case you have missed the whole point!!

Most of our jobs are gone, we just haven't been told yet. Reading this thread should make that obvious. We all have concerns about this, QF knows this and will not address it. Why?????

This is our only chance and they know it, which is why they will fight tooth and nail, and so will we.:ok:

UP D Date

30th Jun 2011, 04:17

Great job FedSec, and all the executive, looks like management have once again underestimated our resolve and cohesion as a union, to get a fair and reasonable EBA. Keep up the good work !!

BaronB

30th Jun 2011, 05:24

can't really understand why everyone's getting worried about this distinction between 'strikes' and 'stop work meetings'. one way or the other, we're not going to work next week. doesn't really matter what you call it.

what about heavy though?

Clipped

30th Jun 2011, 08:52

I'm tired of the incompetence, lies, malice and indignation purported by these low lives.

I support my association because it is one of the last bastions of integrity in aviation maintenance in this country. That is, myself and my fellow LAME's whom certify for the safety for all who fly.

That is why this is the good fight.

Keep up the great work SP and team. You have widespread support to get these fools to reconsider their mindless position.

amos2

30th Jun 2011, 09:01

"I support my association because it is one of the last bastions of integrity in aviation maintenance in this country. That is, myself and my fellow LAME's whom certify for the safety for all who fly."

Hmmm!...I don't recollect the lame's showing any great support, if any at all, during the 89' pilots dispute! As a matter of fact most of the flight engineers, ex lame's, couldn't walk away from the pilots fast enough! And, of course, they were more than happy to fly with the, you know who's, without any concerns whatsoever!

What goes around comes around guys!!

Clipped

30th Jun 2011, 09:31

I'll bite ... a little.

'89 - different circumstances. In every way.

Talking with pilots nowadays, there is a comradery and unity in our collective purpose.

Very, very different than '89.

What goes around comes around guys!!

Not sure what you're alluding to and we will prevail. They will not have it all their way.

We are many, they are a few.

amos2

30th Jun 2011, 09:42

"89 - different circumstances. In every way."

So, why is "integrity in aviation" different today than it was in 89'?

"Talking with pilots nowadays, there is a comradery and unity in our collective purpose."

So, why did you lot not support us, indeed, act against us, in 89?

ALAEA Fed Sec

30th Jun 2011, 09:50

So, why did you lot not support us, indeed, act against us, in 89?

Who cares. It's not 89 and we won't all be resigning.

Lean Sigma

30th Jun 2011, 09:50

Our union in those days was in the pockets of the company. :yuk:
Vastly different to the executive that we have today. :D

amos2

30th Jun 2011, 10:23

Well done, Steve!

You'll win a lot of supporters with that post!

You might even wish to retract it!?

the rim

30th Jun 2011, 10:35

hey mate I was around in '89 its a very different thing thats happening now ....for starters you blokes, i am sure you were short haul, were different to the international guys and did not have their support,and if I am correct did not ask for support from the LAME's,so cannot see the reason for your comment,are you just trying to stir up things between the ALAEA and the AIPA,because things are good between the two unions,we are all working towards a common outcome......:*

the rim

30th Jun 2011, 10:40

and lean baby NOT all fed ex members were company stooges so dont paint them all with the same brush......the rim :=

ALAEA Fed Sec

30th Jun 2011, 12:16

Notification number

5

Date of commencement of action

Thursday 7th July 2011.

Time of action

The first 2 hours of any regularly rostered shift that commences between 0100 and midday of that day.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members who are rostered to commence work in Adelaide Line Maintenance.

Nature of action

A 2 hour work stoppage.

ALAEA Fed Sec

30th Jun 2011, 12:17

Notification number

6

Date of commencement of action

Thursday 7th July 2011.

Time of action

The first 2 hours of any regularly rostered shift that commences between 0100 and midday of that day.

Participants

All ALAEA LAME members who are rostered to commence work in Darwin Line Maintenance.

Nature of action

A 2 hour work stoppage.

bandit2

30th Jun 2011, 15:33

Steve shouldn`t you be in bed. Looks like Lyell will have to put out another letter!

Disengagement

30th Jun 2011, 16:15

It comes a time where a line in the sand has to be drawn, and I think that the great majority of hard working LAME would agree , and you will get the outspoken ones that are useless at their jobs that will follow the company line just to survive . They have no backbone and when go home to their children at night and teach them what is right and wrong , can only lie to them as they have no morals . But it is them that must live with their decisions and actions , like with WW1 and WW2 you may have decided not to fight but one day your children will ask WHY did not you fight for what was right and just ? That bloke is walking on ANZAC day march why aren't you.!!!
Everyone is accountable to one person , themselves and it comes down to that , you might join the matey matey club and feel good but really look around at who you now call your mates . Will they help you out in need or just let you go and feather their own nests just as you have done just have you have to get where you are .
Well done the ALAEA for taking on corporate greed and to all their members remember stand up for what is right and just and be the backbone of your Union .
STAND TALL AND PROUD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ok:

blubak

30th Jun 2011, 20:55

We all know by now that we earn 4 times our normal hourly rate when we work overtime!!.Is there a manager in the house that can explain this to us or maybe it was supposed to be part of the great offer they put on the table a couple of months ago but wrote it in invisible ink.
They wonder why there is no 'engagement'-just shows how out of touch these idiots really are.

ALAEA Fed Sec

30th Jun 2011, 23:02

The start times are staggered. A member on a 4 hour call in can cover 2 persons taking a 2 hour stoppage. It's just double time but regardless, they have an option available to prevent service disruption.

mcgrath50

30th Jun 2011, 23:08

Steve was on 774 Melbourne drive show yesterday afternoon and thought he came off very well despite the fact the host seemed intent on making him look like the big bag guy disrupting everyones holidays!

SpannerTwister

1st Jul 2011, 00:13

Take 2 hours off with your industrial action, and call in a guy to cover it, (Minimum 4 hour at double time equals 8 hours pay). That equals 4 times when I went to Primary school ?

Nice first post, So are you from QE Management or QF HR, or just some other planet far away from the land of reality, although some might argue that all three places are the same ?

I suppose your accounting methods also see our "wage" as what we take home in our pay packet each fortnight, not realising that 30% - 40% of that is penalty rates for working while you're tucked up snug and warm in your bed each night or at a mates BBQ on a Saturday evening or watching your kids play sport over the weekend.

But I digress ............

I fail to see how on this earth you can mix my wages with my fellow engineers wages and call it my wages !!

If I do not attend work for two hours I lose two hours pay.

What anybody else does or earns in no way affects what I earn, my pay packet is two hours short.

On the other side of the ledger, if management call me in for four hours, why they did so is of no concern to me, all I care about is getting paid as per our industrial agreement.

Whether or not the company is or is not paying someone else concerns me not one whit, I just require that they pay me what they owe me.

But in the interest of full disclosure, why don't you tell us about your pay deal with the company ?

How much is your annual salary (ours being an industrial agreement is a matter of public record), how much is your maximum annual bonus (ours is none) and what factors is your annual bonus contingent on (not applicable to the people actually doing the work on the floor / in the pilots seat / walking down the aisles serving the passengers / loading the bags ) ?

ST

Take five

1st Jul 2011, 00:26

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a 2 hour stop work, during PIA, results in a loss of 4 hours pay minimum.

If this is the case, why are we not having 4 hour stop work meetings.

ACT Crusader

1st Jul 2011, 00:50

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a 2 hour stop work, during PIA, results in a loss of 4 hours pay minimum.

If this is the case, why are we not having 4 hour stop work meetings.

Take five, your pay is deducted equivalent to the duration of the protected industrial action taken.

The 4 hour docking of pay minimum was under the previous legislation.

mcgrath50

1st Jul 2011, 01:09

The Green Goblin

1st Jul 2011, 01:20

PCFlyer

1st Jul 2011, 01:24

Umm ... so am I understanding this right?

Qantas management want to put on bigger aircraft and call in more people during these 2 hour stoppages with possible delays to flights instead of paying a few guys overtime rates and keeping the original schedules?

Which action would cost the company more money?

Remind me who the rogue kamikaze's are again ... ?

ACT Crusader

1st Jul 2011, 01:28

But they would be paying people to work then normally. So say an engineer gets paid $10 an hour (for ease of calculation).

During that 2 hour stoppage the company would expect to pay $20.

If they used the union strike breakers (at double time) the company would expect to pay $40.

40/20 = 2

TWO TIMES the pay. Not four.

The concern here is that the "If" appears to be a very big one at the moment.

You're right that for the time required to cover the 2 hours of protected action Qantas will have to pay only double. But that same person is required to be there for a minimum of 4 hours under the current agreement and receive 4 hours of overtime pay for that period. That would happen even if a LAME was called in for say 15 minutes of actual work.

But as Fed Sec said, the shifts are staggered in the morning so if there are LAMEs starting at 5, they wont start until 7, plus there are LAMEs that start at 6 and 7 etc that will take action, so they will start at 8 and 9 respectively. A call-in LAME can cover for a LAME on PIA that was scheduled to start at 5 and 7 to work their minimum 4 hours under the EBA.

ALAEA Fed Sec

1st Jul 2011, 01:40

I think we just better get used to Qantas making misleading statements to the public. You can imagine how hard it is to deal with them and why we don't trust them we they make statements like this -

"We can't put what you want into an Agreement but that is our intention".

They put out a press statement yesterday saying that we are targeting the State of Origin match in Bne by having stoppages that morning in Bne. I would think a targeted action against this game would have seen stoppages that day in Syd, not Bne.

600ft-lb

1st Jul 2011, 02:01

BrissySparkyCoit

1st Jul 2011, 03:48

Because, if they call someone in to cover for a shift, they get paid a minimum of four hours.

If they need to call in people to cover, that's their own problem. They are getting at least 5 days notice for each action. Can't help it if they fail to organise coverage until last minute.

BaronB

1st Jul 2011, 03:57

Qantas management want to put on bigger aircraft and call in more people during these 2 hour stoppages with possible delays to flights instead of paying a few guys overtime rates and keeping the original schedules?

Which action would cost the company more money?

We all know it has nothing to do with how much it costs. Look at how much management said it cost them last time. We could all have had 15% pay rises and got on with things ...

Jet-A-One

1st Jul 2011, 04:22

Some LAMEs weren't even born in 89...

Build a bridge...

legacy LAME

1st Jul 2011, 05:46

I am so sick and tired of listening to Qf management and their BS.
I have heard it all before.
they have outsourced , off shored and closed down as much as they can
and still function. as soon as jetstar get the 787's and the 767 is a thing of the
past they will shut down even more.
this EBA is not about money it is about our jobs.
well I got news for the company stooges that watch these pages,
I aint going down without a fight.
RIP
syd heavy maint
syd EOC
syd support shops

Lean Sigma

1st Jul 2011, 06:04

It's not about the 2 hours here or 2 hours there, this is just the beginning.

Reality is that the Lames are disengaged and the brakes will be on for the whole shift for the duration of the campaign.
A lot of what happens runs on goodwill.
This has dried up, thanks to the current management muppets.

There's a good chance that what takes 10 minutes to fix with an engaged employee will take greater than 1 hour as per text book, and what takes 5 hours to do with an engaged employee will take greater than one shift as per text book.

BaronB

1st Jul 2011, 06:14

probably best not to post that sort of stuff on this public forum mate

amos2

1st Jul 2011, 10:50

2hrs pay, 4hrs pay, 6hrs pay...or even 8hrs pay to scab on your mates!
Strewth, if you haven't got that sorted out, what else haven't you got sorted out?...Oh boy, this will be interesting! :=

BrissySparkyCoit

1st Jul 2011, 11:43

Amos2, I think you need to sort out the difference between the forthcoming PIA and scabbing. I'm certain every (other?) ALAEA member is pretty clear with it.

Nassensteins Monster

1st Jul 2011, 12:50

By now we all know that spurious references to world events are our fault by default, so there is no need to get emotional about it all. It's going to happen and they have the advertising budget with the media that will skew the argument to their side as a matter of course.

Now I understand why I 've seen hardly any Qantas advertising. They've been saving their money for the coming propaganda war. :rolleyes:

600ft-lb

1st Jul 2011, 12:53

2hrs pay, 4hrs pay, 6hrs pay...or even 8hrs pay to scab on your mates!
Strewth, if you haven't got that sorted out, what else haven't you got sorted out?...Oh boy, this will be interesting! :=Just some education for you mate.

Call-in overtime (ie not rostered in as in a 12/12 hr ddnn shift) is minimum 4 hours of double time. Regardless if they only want us there for 2 minutes, its a 4 hour minimum payment at double dollars.

They could call us in for 12 hours on the affected day if they wanted to.

It is all sorted out from our perspective, people are just getting a bit emotional about the latest mistruth from the PR department. We should all be used to it by now.

But, I wonder why you are taking such a keen interest and putting your negative non productive 2 cents worth in at every step in this thread. Yes I'm sure you're bitter about 89, its not relevant today attacking the LAME's as a whole as most of them were not even LAME's or AME's in 1989.

Even the majority of Ex-Ansett guys have gotten over it by now and that was only in 2001.

Don't you just love the 'find more posts function'

Another great post by Amos during our last dispute

Let me tell you why you blokes are not gonna win this dispute!

1. 40% of you will scab.
2. The company will employ strike breakers.
3. The public will turn against you.
4. The company (obviously) is against you.
5. The Guvmint' will be against you.
6. The pilots, cabin crew, traffic officers, dunny cleaners...you name it, will all be against you.
7. You want 5, the company has offered 3 plus 1 in super, the weaklings amongst you will buckle so quick over a piddly extra 1 it will be all over in a week!

So, is what I'm saying valid...
well, I think it is, and you know why?...

'cause back in 89' when Ansett and Australian airlines brought in foreign registered aircraft crewed by foreign pilots to break the domestic pilots dispute, guess who serviced and signed off on the part twos'...

You guys!! And that shows your character...which aint that crash hot!

You might need reminding that secondary strike action is illegal in Australia
Trade Practices Act 1974 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act)

desmotronic

2nd Jul 2011, 04:48

From the ABC.

Qantas engineers have called off strike action scheduled for next week because of the expected chaos that will be caused by the grounding of all Tiger Airways flights.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has suspended all Tiger Airways flights in Australia for the next week because of "serious" safety concerns.

The Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a series of rolling stoppages in some capital cities next week over job security issues.

In May Qantas was forced to cancel more than 30 flights ahead of a strike by the engineers, however the action ended up being cancelled.

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says over 30,000 passengers will be affected by the Tiger Airways grounding.

He says CASA did not take the decision lightly.

"That is extremely regrettable, but I think the Australian public expects safety to always come first," he said.

"My department, my staff, CASA, have been working literally all night to do what they can to put in place these measures."

Mr Albanese says Tiger could seek an injunction against the flight ban.

CASA first raised concerns about Tiger's safety and maintenance in March.

Last month two Tiger flights flew too low as they approached Melbourne.

CASA says it is no longer confident the airline can address its concerns.

A spokesman for the authority says it is considering whether it needs to go to the Federal Court to extend the grounding.

Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin have put on extra flights to help the stranded passengers.