Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin [Archive] - Page 7

Sunfish

20th Jul 2011, 11:03

In the IT industry we have a phrase: "Smoke and Mirrors" which is shorthand for the demonstrations folks like Microsoft make of their new technology at exhibitions.

It is generally smoke, bright lights and mirrors and revolving stages showing nice looking Dolly girls solving world wide logistics problems at the press of a key - hence the description - "smoke and mirrors" for blinding managers to the hard fact; Garbage in = garbage out.

Now Air France has had at least one fatal accident caused by garbage in. Qantas has had one incident, though not fatal. So what happens when the folk on the ground no longer have the skills to recognise when the on board computers are sending them garbage?

My management aspirations started in 1981. Ansett had just bought the B767. Sunfish did his maintenance numbers for the annual budget and submitted them as usual....

A week later I was in my cubicle when I saw the Director of Engineering, my boss and the airlines Chief Accountant, marching down the corridor with savage expressions on their faces. "Jeez, I thought, someone is in trouble" then they stopped at my cubicle and grabbed me!

Turned out Abeles had seen the size of the engineering budget and said in accented Hungarian to Graeme: "You mean I have all these brand new aircraft which maintain themselves and you still want this much money?" I had some explaining to do in the Boardroom, got a taste for that luxury and the rest is history.

All I can say is good luck to the poor bastards in Qantas who have to give effect to AJ;'s waving hands about how much Engineering money he is going to save. Most of that cash is spent on tyres, oil and regular scheduled line maintenance. The big bills for heavy maintenance won't appear for at least another four years, and when they do, I doubt if they will be any cheaper, judging from my cost of servicing Mercedes Benz automobiles.

Of course when I bought my Landcruiser, I bought the service manuals with it. It has never seen the inside of a dealers workshop in 380,000 km.

unityqf

20th Jul 2011, 11:13

CAT A licenses here we come! 2 years aircraft experience with limited company training. I'll certify for that aircraft to carry 400 people to wherever it is going!

Sorry here we are!!

Talkwrench

20th Jul 2011, 11:28

legacy LAME, your post #1484 hit the nail on the head. Your sentiments are shared by many, I'm sure.

Jethro Gibbs et al, chin up fellas! It aint over yet. Not by a long shot. Just sit back and wait to see what 24 August brings.

ALAEA Exec, you're doing a cracking job IMHFO. So good in fact, it deserves an emoticon: :ok:.

buttmonkey1

20th Jul 2011, 11:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNJ4zr0Z_3A

i prefer the nokair business plan.

Take five

20th Jul 2011, 11:38

We won't be training anyone to A licence rating.
The new aircraft won't be fixing themselves.
We will be working to the MM.
The pilots are in the same battle.
The investors are looking at the background of all this drama and are doing a forensic analysis of Jetstar costs and bad decisions already made.
Alan is on the way out, as is Cliff.
Anyone who could kill the price of Rio Tinto shares from over $100 to $23 is not fit to be in charge of this great company.
Chill and wait for the blank red pieces of paper.

ALAEA Fed Sec

20th Jul 2011, 11:41

Just reviewing a few things here. Jethro, I think you are correct and not a troll, please accept my apologies. I do think however that you are a little pessimistic and certainly I would not be following your advice but this does not make you a company stooge.

Jethro Gibbs

20th Jul 2011, 12:02

Thanks:ok:

Roger that.

20th Jul 2011, 12:42

AJ. You crumb. I've only got 25 yrs up but I have found that new aircraft leak hydraulic fluild just aswell as the older aircraft. Toilet trucks and baggage trollies run into new aicraft, and rest assured, birds can't tell the diffrence between new and old.
As for Olivia. Beside the fact my 3/8, 1/4 inch drive socket has more style, you do wanna redo your contract on a adhoc deal. Me think's your gonna be kept very very busy infront of the TV lens.

buttmonkey1

20th Jul 2011, 12:48

JOYCE'S "NO SAFETY CONCERNS" MANTRA...

Joyce also said that in addition to CAAV's investigation, Qantas supported a number of routine and independent audits to assess Pacific's maintenance performance. "The first of these was undertaken prior to the airline taking on the Jetstar brand and the most recent was finalized in October last year," he revealed. "This audit concluded there were no safety concerns with Jetstar Pacific's operations and that the airline met regulatory requirements."
Qantas stands behind troubled Jetstar Pacific :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/60758/qantas-stands-behind-troubled-jetstar-pacific/)

NOT COMMITTED TO SAFETY
Top managers at Vietnamese budget airline Jetstar Pacific, part-owned by Australia's Qantas, violated maintenance regulations, official media reports.
The Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam (CAAV) ruled the three officials made mistakes in monitoring maintenance work and had not fulfilled the company's commitment to safety, Vietnam News Agency said late on Tuesday.
Jetstar Pacific 'violated regulations' (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/jetstar-pacific-violated-regulations-20100113-m69c.html)

lame1

20th Jul 2011, 12:50

Cant wait to hear the board say SORRY to the investors when their plan comes out in public.These people think nothing of the businesses they run but only their pockets.

Ngineer

20th Jul 2011, 12:58

What did you all expect? He is just boring the public with a war of words trying to scare and threaten us into defeat. An excuse for a speech that was basically built around industrial issues that he is failing to deal or cope with.

When PIA gets into full swing, and schedules start to get all out of whack, and hotel bills mount up, and the costs blows out to several hundred million dollars, and management start taking the heat from the public then they will finally realise that they should have negotiated in good faith from the start. (until of course the next EBA begins).

By the way, everytime a "new-gen" aircraft comes out we hear the same old crap about them fixing themselves. But you management guys wouldn't know that, would you??? The last clowns to tell us that are all gooooone.

hadagutfull

20th Jul 2011, 14:02

Hmm, after reading AJ's dribble....
He talks about Flight Engineers and Check - in ground staff having had to accept change..... where are they now?? GONE
Engine line - ( Accept change via special little Amazing People workshops) - GONE

He speaks about all the advantages of Marlin, without mentioning the huge amount of time required for data processing. Whilst it may improve record keeping, it would make no friends when trying to dispatch a flight 3 minutes from curfew and trying to close a work package....

If AJ is so in awe of our specialist skills, and wants to spend a shyte load of money on Engineering, then what's the problem giving us a job security clause??

Me thinkem White man speak with fork tongue.......

blubak

20th Jul 2011, 20:08

Spot on Legacy,but of course what would a LAME know(according to management that is)
Here is another 1 for the list-3 different seat cover colours in 380 economy-maybe the plan is to charge the punter a different fare depending on what colour seat he wishes to park himself on!!
Must be so cost efficient having to have a supplier provide seat covers in 3 colours,not to mention the stores cost of having triple handling.
As for the 777,of course its the wrong aircraft-just ask all the carriers that have them lined up at australian airports every day & night-i am sure they are regretting ever buying them and whats more buying them in the right config was a mistake too they will tell u.

73to91

20th Jul 2011, 22:07

QANTAS has flagged plans to cut maintenance costs by axing its long-standing policy of having a licensed engineer check every passenger jet before take-off.

And the airline intends to hire lesser-qualified "A-licence'' workers to replace licensed engineers for some hangar work as it moves to cut overheads and bolster its survival prospects.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce warned yesterday the flag carrier had no choice but to overhaul its maintenance program if it was to live on and grow in the cut-throat market.

The airline was lumbered with maintenance and repair systems that were "among the least efficient and most expensive in the world'', Mr Joyce said, speaking at an industry conference in Sydney.

He said new-generation Boeing and Airbus aircraft, which made up 50 per cent of the domestic Qantas fleet, did not require the same degree of ``intensive, repetitive maintenance''.

"This therefore makes redundant the current practice that a highly specialised licensed engineer should receive and dispatch each aircraft,'' Mr Joyce said.

Pilots would still carefully check all aircraft before and after every flight, he said, and licensed engineers would continue to inspect older aircraft.

Mr Joyce said it was essential Qantas became more competitive with rival airlines, which enjoyed costs up to 25 per cent lower.

Work practices and job protection go to the core of the airline's industrial dispute with licensed engineers, who have staged one-minute strikes and, in some cases, handled tools using only their left hands.

Mr Joyce said the proposed changes were in line with new standards approved by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, which reflected European standards and global best-practice.

The standards clear the way for the use of workers with an A-licence, who are qualified to work on aircraft but do not require the same level of training and specialisation as licensed engineers.

"This means we can retain our licensed engineers in their specialised roles and provide new opportunities for other maintenance staff,'' Mr Joyce said.

He said some union leaders were "simply out of touch''.

"We don't repair our cars the same way we did 40 years ago - we can't repair our planes the same way either,'' Mr Joyce said.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association condemned the maintenance proposals.

Secretary Steve Purvinas said the push would see engineers with decades of experience made redundant and replaced with workers with as little as three months' training.

He said the association had agreed with Virgin Australia's move to use A-licence holders, but only for 10 per cent of maintenance staff and for those who would attain full engineering licences within two years.

Read more: Qantas plans radical maintenance overhaul | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-plans-radical-maintenance-overhaul/story-e6frfq80-1226098764896#ixzz1SgZdZSXv)

bandit2

20th Jul 2011, 23:03

AJ, Call me stupid. But if you sit on a course for 8-12 weeks learning the specific a/c inside & out, wouldn`t that be considered adapting to new generation a/c.
Or going to Brisvegas & doing the electrical basics?

chimbu warrior

20th Jul 2011, 23:29

I will concede one thing; new generation aircraft have less flaws than new generation management. :hmm:

my oleo is extended

21st Jul 2011, 01:59

I have bolded my responses to this ridiculous piece of puff work sanctioned by Alan. If you took his statement, laminated it and attached some long dark scraggy hair you truly would have a Wirthless object -

QANTAS has flagged plans to cut maintenance costs by axing its long-standing policy of having a licensed engineer check every passenger jet before take-off.
Excellent news. So just like Jetstar they will use a Ground Handler who has just finished working as a builders labourer, only has 6 months experience in aviation, and he will do the pre departure walk around before pushing back the aircraft with a Power Push Unit ? Yep, worlds best practise and certainly the safest method possible? Little man you have become lost in a world of KPI’s, shareholder statements, profit forecasts and cash flows. Alan, why don’t you or your senior team front as many safety forums as you do shareholder forums and business forums? But of course safety is your number one priority isn’t it? Dry that one out and you could fertilize Mascots gardens for a millennium.
Have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry? I am sure the Senators would appreciate the opportunity to review your robust safety analysis word by word.

And the airline intends to hire lesser-qualified "A-licence'' workers to replace licensed engineers for some hangar work as it moves to cut overheads and bolster its survival prospects.
Bolster its survival prospects by removing experience and skill from the workplace? Idiots. Why not apply the same philosophy to top tier management then? Hire some uni grads with no experience at all to run the place. Same principle isn’t it?
Once again I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry? This should not be too hard to produce, after all, safety is your number one priority, correct?

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce warned yesterday the flag carrier had no choice but to overhaul its maintenance program if it was to live on and grow in the cut-throat market.
The only throats being cut are the throats of experiences QF staff. The throat of the business has been slashed wide open by poor management decisions, poor business modelling, corrupt business practises resulting in fines and jail sentences, to name just a few items. So management can stop bleating about maintenance costs being the primary cause of their ‘alleged’ woes. The primary concern should be management’s inability to actually run a complex aviation business such as QF, simple.
This old chestnut has become boring Alan. Once again I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?

The airline was lumbered with maintenance and repair systems that were "among the least efficient and most expensive in the world'', Mr Joyce said, speaking at an industry conference in Sydney.
Based upon what research, what figures, what evidence? Have other airlines been sharing commercially sensitive facts and figures with QF for some reason and comparing data?

He said new-generation Boeing and Airbus aircraft, which made up 50 per cent of the domestic Qantas fleet, did not require the same degree of ``intensive, repetitive maintenance''.
Is that so? Although the Dugong doesn’t operate domestically VH-OQA is a prime example of a ‘new’ aircraft type and what can go wrong. Do you really believe that in the interest of safety that it would be of safety benefit to have no available skilled engineers employed to undertake the incredibly complex process of repairing and returning this ship to service?

"This therefore makes redundant the current practice that a highly specialised licensed engineer should receive and dispatch each aircraft,'' Mr Joyce said.
Another misguided theory little fella based upon excel spread sheet analysis.

Pilots would still carefully check all aircraft before and after every flight, he said, and licensed engineers would continue to inspect older aircraft.
What is your method of determining what constitutes an older aircraft? 1, 10, 20 years old? Based on what exactly? Based upon risk assessments, manufacturer specifications? Or based upon an empty theory plucked out of the air designed to impress the analysts and appease the public? Provide some evidence to back up this statement, little man. Once more and most importantly have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?

Mr Joyce said it was essential Qantas became more competitive with rival airlines, which enjoyed costs up to 25 per cent lower.
So the same shoe fits all does it? After all these years you are saying that Qantas so called method of operation, up to 25% higher than its competitors is something that the shareholder should not be concerned about? Sounds like years and years of poor management is behind such a huge disparity? Would not management be accountable, at all levels, for such a poor performance? What, no overhaul of the top tier of management, yet an overhaul is required for other departments?
I don’t think the travelling public would agree that Engineering requires cutbacks. After all, due to such previous poor decisions Qantas lost it’s absolutely impeccable safety standing within Australia and the wider aviation community, to the point that it has become a laughing matter at home and abroad.
Can Alan prove that other carriers operating costs (allegedly 25% lower) is solely based on their having outsourced maintenance or their hiring of cheaper pilot labor? I would love to review the documentation and evidence please.

Work practices and job protection go to the core of the airline's industrial dispute with licensed engineers, who have staged one-minute strikes and, in some cases, handled tools using only their left hands.
Any actual laws broken little fella?
Anyway, management, many of who are ‘tools’ themselves, have handle the business with both hands stuck inside the ‘bonus tin’ for a long time.

Mr Joyce said the proposed changes were in line with new standards approved by the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, which reflected European standards and global best-practice.
Interesting. Can we please take a look at the assessments that Qantas has made against those exact European and CASA and global best-practice standards that you mention? We would love to examine in depth the obvious analysis that QF has undertaken to come to this conclusion. Agasin
I ask have safety risk assessments been done on this ‘change management process’, and are they available to be seen by CASA, the public, the shareholder and perhaps members of the senate inquiry?

The standards clear the way for the use of workers with an A-licence, who are qualified to work on aircraft but do not require the same level of training and specialisation as licensed engineers.
"This means we can retain our licensed engineers in their specialised roles and provide new opportunities for other maintenance staff,'' Mr Joyce said.
This is a smoke, mirrors and fertiliser statement.

He said some union leaders were "simply out of touch''.
Wow. So you are saying that Union Leaders who actually ENGAGE with the workforce, and have worked in roles that have provided them with actual and factual knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the business, are out of touch??? I would rather assert that accountant type management whose only concern is their next bonus payment and whose main role is sitting in an air-conditioned office with leather high back chairs sipping on Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Joet and nibbling at Italian white Alba truffles would have better insight? Hmmm

"We don't repair our cars the same way we did 40 years ago - we can't repair our planes the same way either,'' Mr Joyce said.
Well there you have it, the motherhood of all statements, the ‘piece de resistance’! This guy compares cars and car technology to the highly specialised, intricate and complex machinery called an aircraft? I guess it is good news for the apprentices at Holden, easy transition from fixing a Barina to maintaining A380 avionics as an example.
Folks, your lives are in the hands of this type of inept management. If you weren’t frightened before, you should be now.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association condemned the maintenance proposals.
Secretary Steve Purvinas said the push would see engineers with decades of experience made redundant and replaced with workers with as little as three months' training.

He said the association had agreed with Virgin Australia's move to use A-licence holders, but only for 10 per cent of maintenance staff and for those who would attain full engineering licences within two years.

peuce

21st Jul 2011, 02:14

hcmcmcclown; just because the rest of the world do something a certain way does NOT mean that it is necessarily the best way. Blindly following what everyone else does because some boffin deems it "world's best practice" is short sighted and failure prone at best.

The way we do it here in Australia has served us well for many a long year. Change can be a good thing if done constructively, however, change for change's sake bears an ill wind.

Sounds very much like the Dick Smith Vs Flight Service battle to me.

The Flight Service outcome:

Big fight ... logic against "World's Best Practice"
Bullied through
No one has died ... the world has kept revolving ... but general Aviation Professionalism has certainly taken a beating
Some very happy Redundantees

The (predicted) Qantas Outcome:

Big fight ... logic against "World's Best practice"
Bullied through
No one has died(hopefully) ... the world has kept revolving ... but Engineering Professionalism has certainly taken a beating and engineering delays have increased (but Company happy to live with that)
Some very happy Redundantees

Hope I'm wrong ...

73to91

21st Jul 2011, 03:18

Further to the responses of 'my oleo...'

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank managing director Mike Hirst has hit out at the investment managers that influence the allocation of billions of dollars in funds, suggesting the industry suffers from inexperience while a focus on short-term returns is leading to risky outcomes.

Mr Hirst has become the latest bank executive to caution that the days of banks generating returns in excess of 20 per cent were over, saying the sector should be viewed like a utility, given the critical role banks play in the economy.

But most focus was levelled at investment specialists that tend to look through efforts by some companies to build a longer term strategy.

''You sit in front of these 26- and 27-year-olds earning half a million dollars and they're asking you questions: 'This is what's going to happen in the next three months - what are you going to do about it and what number do I plug into my spreadsheet,'' Mr Hirst said.

''There's no attention to what's the strategy or how long it takes to play out [or] what does it mean in terms of value to the organisation,'' he said. ''It's a frustration - I just sit there, take it, and hear what they've got to say and walk out shaking my head.''

Read more: Top banker blasts 'short term' 26-year-olds earning $500,000 (http://www.smh.com.au/business/top-banker-blasts-short-term-26yearolds-earning-500000-20110720-1how5.html#ixzz1ShpWFTlm)

Bumpfoh

21st Jul 2011, 03:49

Yes Alan Joyce gutless.

You or any of your underlings have not had the guts to come out the workforce and directly portray to the workforce, the very people that stand to be affected by your announcement of your intended change to current maintenance practices.

Yes we have all heard it (rumor) by proxy in some way but instead you choose to announce it at some airy fairy conference trying to big note yourself in front of other attendees and the media, and jokers like Harbison.

Managements mantra about open dialogue and building trust amongst the troops is all a load of crapola when major work change is announced in a public forum with little or no regard for the staff it directly affects.

Worlds best practice or not Alan, you are slowly but surely falling on your sword.:mad:

griffin one

21st Jul 2011, 04:02

To FEDSEC and AIPA

Lets organise a good old fashioned BBQ in the park opposite the Sydney International Terminal for the 24th August.
Every Lame and Pilot rostered off could attend with families while we await the so called big annoucement.

Show the media the actual families this new restructure will affect.

aveng

21st Jul 2011, 05:35

Totally agree Griff - maybe Australia wide, the more the better.

The thing I find most confusing is that these ass clowns believe everything the manufacturerers are sprooking about their new a/c dont need maintenance - and boeing can deliver the 787 on time.:rolleyes:

When you buy a new car does anyone actually believe they will truly get the performance/fuel figures provided. Thats the difference between an engineer and an accountant.:ugh:

Runaround Valve

21st Jul 2011, 05:53

As a long retired Qantas engineer I remember a story from when Qantas got their first Boeing 707-138. May be true, may be not. The then Chief Executive, Cedric ObanTurner [ accountant by profession] wanted to sack a lot of the engineers. His theory was 'that when I buy a new car it does not need major work until they had done 30,000 or 50.000 miles.' His logic was aircraft were the same and more engineers could be employed as the aircraft got older.

F.B.Eye

21st Jul 2011, 06:24

I have just finished reading "The Pursuit of Excellence – The story of Qantas Engineering and Maintenance 1971-2001" by Bruce Leonard.
During the 1980s and early 1990s there were several commendations and awards from all three engine manufacturers to Qantas for the reliability and record times in service of engines that had been through the Qantas workshops. Qantas was an industry leader, it is now just another airline and rapidly slipping below average. While the facilities and equipment can be replaced the experience of tradesmen cannot. A culture that has developed over many years is now lost.
It is sad to see a world leading industry being destroyed by shortsighted academics and beancounters.

howyoulikethat

21st Jul 2011, 06:39

Unfortunately,we slit our own throats by not putting up a real fight against the part 66,why is it,we had to follow...again there is a greater force at work,it affects the bottom line...with the winds of change the great lames are gone,with a questioning future for the A types.....

hewlett

21st Jul 2011, 06:48

Sooooo......... now that Qantas has made public their poorly kept secret,I am guessing that their will be an attractive offer made at the negotiating table in an attempt to buy off the membership to allow smooth passage?

woollcott

21st Jul 2011, 07:59

Look, by all means, have a go at us AJ - but lets look at a few other things first:

Management making decisions that are just plain stupid, that end up costing tens of millions -

The Dallas flights - 2 diversions in the last week due low fuel
The Cargo cartel fines
Paying $150 million to fight a $10 million payrise
The Vietnam execs ransom
etc etc etc

SO much for engaging the workforce. All they have done is make them angry and bitter

Add to this a management structure built on empire building - we all got the recent statement that we have just had a new "Manager people communication" appointed who will report to the "Manager people advisor" or some such nonsense

Our particular section has 5 managers.

10 years ago we had 1

I hope you are reading this AJ, cause heres a simple tip, free of charge, guaranteed to save a few million in one hit

GET RID OF THE USELESS LAYERS OF MANAGEMENT

BaronB

21st Jul 2011, 08:00

Cant wait to hear the board say SORRY to the investors when their plan comes out in public

What makes you think they'll say sorry? Which Board in Australia has ever said sorry when the company goes down the tube? Think about James Hardie and what happened there. Maybe AJ will follow their lead, and just move the HQ to Hanoi and be done with it.

No, the reality is, if they screw it up, they'll just spend more of Q's money defending themselves in Court. If they stopped paying the bl00dy lawyers, they could afford to give us some job security.

legacy LAME

21st Jul 2011, 08:01

YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!
tell it like it is!
what the hell is worlds best practice anyway?
Sounds like a statement management make to cover their
Own bad decisions like, our outsourced engine overhaul is
Worlds best practice!
is That is why they blow up Joycey?

the rim

21st Jul 2011, 13:17

give me strengh....this crock of bull****e has been rolled out for years,when are we going to just face the facts that fixing and flying aircraft cost money,and if you want the best people to do the best then you have to pay them more than the others....so AJ has told us now thats what he wants,and its not the best,well get on with it and lets move onto the next phase,down size your workforce bring in unskilled workers to look after the new gen aircraft...whooa did I say new gen,what about the old clunkers we have now,looking at a ZX the other night it felt like looking at a PanAm aircraft 30 years ago....the rim

sani-com

21st Jul 2011, 15:14

If world's best practice for an engine shop is measured in hours on wing, then surely QF was world's best practice. When managers use the term "world's best practice", they actually mean "world's cheapest practice" because that's all they look at, the bottom line.

Bigboeingboy

21st Jul 2011, 15:37

How good is our flight following?

TIMA9X

21st Jul 2011, 17:06

A great piece from Garry Norris, ALAEA to Ben Sandilands.
Some other parts of the Qantas story

July 21, 2011 – 9:37 pm, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)

One of the unusual things about the long drawn out dispute between Qantas management and its international pilot and licensed engineers unions is the difference in the narratives chosen by the company and its employees.
The company does much of its talking about costs. The unions do almost all their talking about the management actions that they see as destroying the standards that are the strength of the brand. Neither side is responding to the narrative of the other.
And the management controls the general media coverage to the extent that its voice is heard the loudest, with the contrary voices either unreported or given a few token lines. This writer doesn’t accept everything that either side says, but in fairness, thinks the union voices should be heard, whether they are right or wrong, because unless they are heard, how can anyone come to informed conclusions?

Gary Norris is the Senior Industrial Officer in the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association or ALAEA.
He sent me this briefing note on engine outsourcing problems.

Qantas Engines Outsourcing Debacles! Other Parts may be Next?
It is well known in internal Qantas engineering circles that its experience with outsource engine maintenance providers has not been a good one, even in Australia let alone overseas. Qantas shut down its internal B737 engine shop at Tullamarine and outsourced it to a Patrick Corp (Virgin) Qantas Joint Venture for the overhaul and maintenance of CFM56 GE engines used on Qantas 737-400s & 800s and Virgin 737-800s. The joint venture failed with Patrick Corp (Virgin) pulling out which was due mainly to costly reworks due to quality problems with the product. This led to not enough engines being available within the normal manufacturer’s requirement for hours in service. It’s rumored that Virgin were livid about the engine delivery delays and drop in hours on wing stats.

Qantas also had to source engines from overseas to make up the shortfall, therefore negating any efficiencies it may have gained through the joint venture. Qantas were left with the bag and had to find another partner or effectively drop the corporate veil and wholly own it leaving them back where they started. Eventually Lufthansa Technik became the other joint venture partner (LTQ), but its reported quality assurance and delivery issues still remain with the joint venture product. LTQ also repair GE CF6-80C2 Engines (767 & 747) and GE CF680E1 Engines (A330) for Qantas. Effectively the control of quality and on time delivery was taken out of the proven reliable Qantas Engineering hands and handed over to Qantas Supply Chain management. The Tullamarine APU (Auxilliary Power Unit) overhaul repair and maintenance was also shut down and outsourced. Since then and recently, there has been approximately 13 unscheduled replacements of APUs within 3 months, such an amount of replacements when the work was done by Qantas usually happened over a time span of 2 to 3 years. Effectively the control of quality and on time delivery was taken out of the proven reliable Qantas Engineering hands and handed over to Qantas Supply Chain management.

Then there is the well publicised closure in July 2009, of the Sydney Rolls Royce RB211 Centre of Excellence the world’s best practice Rolls Royce engine maintenance and overhaul facility. For 18 years this facility turned out a product that was the most reliable and had the longest on wing in service for any Rolls Royce RB211 and derivative engines in the world. Since the closure there has been 10 major blade failures some of them having spectacular effect and widely publicised in the media. In outsourcing these engines Qantas handed over the control of its engine quality and safety to maintenance organisations controlled by Singapore Airlines Engineering Company SIAEC. Ironic seeing that Singapore Airlines is Qantas main rival on its international routes and in the expanding Asian market. Effectively the control of quality and on time delivery was taken out of the proven reliable Qantas Engineering hands and handed over to Qantas Supply Chain management.

Since 2006, Qantas have systematically closed down maintenance facilities including Sydney B747 Heavy maintenance, Tullamarine Engine Shop, Tullamarine APU overhaul shop, Tullamarine and Sydney parts and components repair shops, and the Rolls Royce line. Effectively the control of quality and on time delivery is taken out of the proven reliable Qantas Engineering hands and handed over to Qantas Supply Chain management.
More recently Qantas Supply Chain started outsourcing its own QF parts and components logistics to external agencies such as Airinmar, Spareline and Air France.

When Qantas used to do all this work in house its own computer tracking systems for parts and components recorded the usage, servicing, repair and maintenance history for every part or component, therefore enabling Qantas engineering to programme servicing, repairs and overhaul of parts and components on a systematic and controlled basis. This had the control of reliability firmly in Qantas’ Engineering’s hands, enabling LAMEs to Certify with confidence; hence the long history of Qantas airworthy, safe, reliable aircraft which has taken a battering since all this restructuring started. The parts and components will now be from a “pool” managed by Qantas Supply chain but sourced through Airinmar, Spareline or Air France. The problem is Qantas Engineering now has to rely on parts and component history only verified by an external supplier and not controlled within the Qantas system of maintenance by Qantas Engineering.

Effectively Qantas has decided to take the “risk” that all will be well with a supplier who has a vested interest in selling a part or component to get the revenue. Who knows what risks they are prepared to take to supply so they get the money? Well watch this space………..the problem now is that parts and component failures (as exampled by the RB211 incidents) may become more prevalent for other areas of the aircraft as Qantas managers continue on their faulty strategy of outsourcing the control of quality, reliability and on time delivery from the proven reliable Qantas Engineering hands and handed over to Qantas Supply Chain management.

The problem for our LAME members is can you be assured that the parts and components you will Certify for once fitted on an aircraft, now sourced externally including their “bought history”, has actually the appropriate accurate history with it? That is, is the part/component represented to you genuine??

While this writer doesn’t accept an inference that a Singaporean facility would deliberately impair a job for a Qantas jet, there has in general been some persuasive evidence that not all overseas facilities are uniformly excellent, or been effectively monitored by Qantas, or may not have been set up to deal with some notably older jets than you might find in fleets of Singapore Airlines or Emirates for example.
What worries in the analysis that Gary Norris has written is the way it compliments the management narrative on how costly and inefficient its engineering and maintenance processes had become.

There has not been a word from management about the excellence of the processes it is putting to the sword in favor of these lower but globally compliant standards that Qantas clearly sees as saving its money.
Qantas and its standards are inseparable in the public mind. They also appear to be unaffordable or unnecessary in the management mind.
So, when they are gone, won’t the reasons for flying Qantas have also gone?

Qantas engineers raise doubts about maintenance integrity | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/07/21/some-other-parts-of-the-qantas-story/)
Some great stuff here and these words from Ben struck me;And the management controls the general media coverage to the extent that its voice is heard the loudest, with the contrary voices either unreported or given a few token lines. Says it all really.

Jet-A-One

21st Jul 2011, 19:05

In light of AJ's recent comments re the no-LAME transit on new gen domestic aircraft.

Is this really something we are able to stop? Considering Virgin and Jet* have been doing it for so long, with no perceived problems. We know it's better to have a LAME check every aircraft prior to every departure but, when you also consider all the unmanned stations that already operate in our domestic operation, do we have a leg to stand on?

The way I see it, no-LAME pre-flight inspections on 737 NG non-ETOPS sectors, or "LAME-on-demand" as they're now calling it, is something that is inevitable. Knowing full well that the reduction in LAME numbers would be minimal considering there will be just as much work at night and permanent nightshift is a thing of the past.

Is this something being negotiated Steve? Is this something that we can agree to, to get a reasonable offer on the table?

Sunfish

21st Jul 2011, 19:22

Watch for a massive drop in despatch reliability due to engineering issues - and this will be after the negotiation of the EBA.

QF is about to learn the difference between how management "thinks" maintenance and overhaul is done and the actual "reality" of how its done.

If QF is lucky, it will only cost them about Two engineering managers and millions in consulting costs before they realise that they have lost control of one of the core competencies of an airline - producing an aircraft on time at a gate ready to take passengers to the scheduled destination.

The nice consulting euphemism for describing the difference between what management thinks happens and what actually happens in maintenance and many other activities is usually dressed up as "changes to business rules".

"Changes to business rules" means that the systems and practices management forced on don't work because:

(a) They were improperly described and understood when the new systems were dreamed up Two or Three years ago by a consultant who was selling stuff.

(b) The systems and practices can't change as fast as the business does, in other words they can't keep up with changes. The people on the floor of course, who have the best understanding of what works, what doesn't and what might work, are not allowed to have any input into this process.

Consultants make a great deal of money out of modifications and upgrades to systems and practices to cope with "changes to business rules".

For example, I'll bet that the guys who built the troubled "Myki" public transport ticketing system are going to make millions making it Android and iPhone friendly - those disruptive technologies weren't around when the system was specified were they?

How is Qantas going to use the iPad? How does giving one to every LAME with a complete set of automatically updating manuals and IPC's sound?

By the way, what is Qantas going to do with control surfaces and flaps as well as actuators? If they are "pooled" how is mod status going to be managed?

aveng

22nd Jul 2011, 01:42

How is Qantas going to use the iPad? How does giving one to every LAME with a complete set of automatically updating manuals and IPC's sound?
They cant even fix printer problems at QF.

The writing was on the wall a long time ago when KTA was starting and the old exec ignored the warnings from PER lames.

Not trying to stir up the pilots - butwhat exactly are there criteria/training requirements for a "walk around" - do they actually get any engineering training? Can they actually name the parts they are looking at? :confused:

airtags

22nd Jul 2011, 02:12

aveng -
just to put your mind at rest, generally knowing how things work and particularly which bits do what, is kind of a must have for the pilot gig whether you're GA or on a Jumbo. (certain cadet schemes excluded)

Having a look during a pre-flight walkaround is also a lot more than something to fill in 10 to 15 mins and sometimes yields an issue requiring the expert advice/repair of the (experienced, expert) Eng.

I think that your pitch really needs to be more about the importance of the partnership between the Eng & Pilot and how by short-cutting the process on a purely economic whim is actually making a choice of either:
a) safe, (or in the case of some 'safe-ish')
b) safer
c) or safest outcomes.

Pls note that contrary to Joyce and Co., the latter is my preference.

Also note that the faux "success" of the Joyce positions on these matters is largely predicated on the "I don't want to know" factor - from which it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it all works and saves a few dollars - until something really sh*ts itself or the unthinkable happens - wherein it then becomes someone else's fault.

We're on the same side mate - let's not fragment the debate.

AT

King William III

22nd Jul 2011, 02:27

Jet-A-One said;
"LAME-on-demand" as they're now calling it, is something that is inevitable.

Yes, IMHO it's inevitable, however, if the pilot finds something on his walk around he's not happy with, or a bit unsure about………….

The tarmac will only be as LAME-less as the pilots want it to be so QF will drop numbers at their peril…..horrible delays could ensue…..especially if parts are needed :rolleyes:!

Jethro Gibbs

22nd Jul 2011, 02:38

PartSmart that worked well.:eek:

SpannerTwister

22nd Jul 2011, 02:40

As far as pilots being "forced" to do the pre-flights, I hold no grudge whatsoever towards them, we've all got a job to do / mortgages to pay / wife(s) to support / kids to feed .................

And I'm equally confident that if it comes to the no-LAME tarmac that the pilots would recognise that their mechanical skills are not on a par with a LAME.

I'm sure that if they saw some 'wet Skydrol"they would recognise that they wouldn't know the difference between a potential hydraulic leak and a seep that can be deferred with a "rag spanner" for further evaluation, between allowable "chevron cuts" and a potential blow-out in a tyre, between tread reinforcing and the structural components of a tyre, how many screws are permitted to be missing in a leading edge panel, between oil weeping in the tail-pipe and a potential bearing failure and oil fire................

I'm confident that if they came across any "issues" like these they would call for a LAME, no-LAME tarmac or not :ok: :ok: :ok: !!!

And if there are no available LAMEs around 'cos they've all been made redundant of shifted to night-shift .........

Oh...BTW, I not at all sure that they can FORCE us to permanent night-shift, but I do KNOW that even if they can, they can only make us do eight-hour night-shifts :} :} :}

Anyone else here remember just how little work actually used to get done on the eight-hour night-shifts ??

Start // hand-over // get the tools organised // often the plane wasn't even in the hangar yet // smoko // first-work (3 hours if they are lucky) // tea // second-work (2 hours max) // smoko // tow aircraft to bay // handover // go home !! :E :E :E :E

And we didn't even have "Take-Five" then ......... :} :}

ST

Ngineer

22nd Jul 2011, 04:53

Yes, IMHO it's inevitable, however, if the pilot finds something on his walk around he's not happy with, or a bit unsure about………….

Sounds good in theory, but this is where the whole problem lies.

What do you think is going to happen if LAME-less workplaces become a reality? Do you think management will say "Ok, we've cut engineering to the bone, lets look elsewhere where we can cut costs" ???

A/ Of course not. In reality, QF enigneering has been continuously changing and evolving the last 10+ years in order to satisfy the whims of these bean counters, regardless of what AJ says. They will keep pressuring us to save a buck so the next manager can get his bonus.

If LAME-less tarmacs come in, and if something gets picked up on a walk-around, then the pilot may point it out to a (most likely) less qualified and less-experienced mechanic. He will more than likely fail to deal with it because he is inexperienced and under a degree of pressure to minimise a delay (or to put schedule ahead of safety). He may not know what he is looking at and decide to take a chance and tell the skipper "it's alright, she's in limits" or just turn a blind eye.

This is what will eventuate, make no mistakes about it.

hi-speed tape

22nd Jul 2011, 05:24

All defects must be entered into the tech log then actioned by a the type rated LAME using a maintenance manual reference. There is no "she'll be right mate"

division1

22nd Jul 2011, 05:31

This is what will eventuate, make no mistakes about it.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif If LAME-less tarmacs come in, and if something gets picked up on a walk-around, then the pilot may point it out to a (most likely) less qualified and less-experienced mechanic. He will more than likely fail to deal with it because he is inexperienced and under a degree of pressure to minimise a delay (or to put schedule ahead of safety). He may not know what he is looking at and decide to take a chance and tell the skipper "it's alright, she's in limits" or just turn a blind eye.

ngineer seems to sum it up nicely, this 'worlds best practice' scenario is
what Fred Bruggeman, from aircraft engineers international, described
occuring throughout europe with another problem of overconfident and/or
undertrained CAT A people doing the lames job unsupervised.
He does not paint such a rosy picture of the EASA regs that Joyce does.

Ngineer

22nd Jul 2011, 06:53

All defects must be entered into the tech log then actioned by a the type rated LAME using a maintenance manual reference. There is no "she'll be right mate"

Maybe in the EASA perfect world.

100% LAME, 100% safe.:ok:

aveng

22nd Jul 2011, 09:29

We're on the same side mate - let's not fragment the debate.

Couldn't agree more - but pilots doing a whip around in the dark with a p!ssy torch (if at all) is not right. Also why are a lot of (not all - granted) the defects from NW flights only put in the log for the return journey? We all need to be on the same page, engineers included. We need to look around these a/c like our families are flying on them.

Take five

22nd Jul 2011, 10:14

If it's not right, it won't be going anywhere! Period.:=

the rim

22nd Jul 2011, 17:59

have some of you guys had your head in the sand for years or what,dont you remember about eight or more years ago the ALAEA had this fight with ALL the airlines that operated domestic.They went to court had bill boards and bumper stickers........and stated in the media that it was not that the pilots could not do a pre-flt check,but it was better to have BOTH do it one for airmanship and the other for airworthyness,come on its not between us and the pilots,we are in this together,oh by the way jet* and virgin have a lame-less tarmac now.......I dont agree just stating a fact....dont forget what happened in the past

airsupport

22nd Jul 2011, 20:54

Steve P,

PLEASE tell me that this is NOT true, that QF are NOT now going down the road of doing turnrounds at major bases with no LAMES. :ugh:

As you know I was an Aussie LAME for some 40 years, now retired though and was never with QF, however my Family still fly extensively with QF and I will worry for their safety IF this starts. :eek:

I have worked with and flown with so many great Aussie Pilots all over the World, although most of them are probably retired now too, and I am sure 100% of them would be against this idea.

I will never forget a turnround I was doing here in BNE many years ago on a B737, this First Officer started following me around asking questions while I was trying to do my job, then the Captain came up behind us and asked me was I Licenced on the B737, I answered him that yes I was Engine and Airframes, then he asked how much training did that involve, and I replied (from memory) something like 6 weeks Airframe and 4 weeks Engine theory schooling plus practical training, the Captain then said this guy (the F/O) had to watch videos for a few hours, and told the F/O to f&%k off up to the cockpit and leave me alone to do my job.

Anyone can miss things, however the safest turnround must be if you have at least one qualified Pilot AND 1 qualified LAME doing independent checks. :ok:

Best regards,

David.

airsupport.

Jet-A-One

22nd Jul 2011, 23:16

This is what we need.

Click the link and sign the petition.

QANTAS Pilots (http://qantaspilots.com.au/)

Then cut and paste it into an email and send to all your friends and relatives.

Nassensteins Monster

23rd Jul 2011, 02:37

Awesome idea. Engineers need to do the same.

A few minor problems with the Qantas Pilots website:
1. To whom will the petition be presented? When there are how many signatures? Or on what date?
2. Under "Contact Us" you guys need an email address.
3. Make the point that you pay a little extra for your Qantas ticket for a reason: the reputation and professionalism of the airline's pilots. Remove the Qantas pilot and you remove part of the reason for paying a premium.
4. Counter AJ's "outrageous" claims with management's "outrageous" claims. Any pilots etc out there with some relevant suggestions? Counter "rogue" pilots union with "rogue" management. Suggestions: cargo cartel, out of control bonuses, creative accountancy, failure to buy 777's, buying A330s with incorrect cabin config then spending $M's reconfiguring, under-utilisation of fleet, no QF services to certain destinations, buying unproven & ultimately unreliable IFE... further suggestions anyone?

framer

23rd Jul 2011, 03:48

the Captain then said this guy (the F/O) had to watch videos for a few hours, and told the F/O to f&%k off up to the cockpit and leave me alone to do my job.

What a tool.
Glad there aren't many Captains like that around now days. Airsupport, did you tell the captain that the f/o can stay? That it was nice to see someone trying to learn more about their a/c from an expert and at the same time getting to know the people they work with?
I fixed/maintained jets for nearly a decade before I took my first flying lesson so was well aware when I got an F/O gig on the 737 that the LAMES had a lot to teach me about that particular a/c type. And when I asked them questions, they were keen to share their knowledge.
If you were too busy a simple "sorry mate, I've gotta keep movin and haven't the time to chat today" would have sorted it yeah?

attitude attitude attitude

airsupport

23rd Jul 2011, 04:35

What a tool.
Glad there aren't many Captains like that around now days. Airsupport, did you tell the captain that the f/o can stay? That it was nice to see someone trying to learn more about their a/c from an expert and at the same time getting to know the people they work with?
I fixed/maintained jets for nearly a decade before I took my first flying lesson so was well aware when I got an F/O gig on the 737 that the LAMES had a lot to teach me about that particular a/c type. And when I asked them questions, they were keen to share their knowledge.
If you were too busy a simple "sorry mate, I've gotta keep movin and haven't the time to chat today" would have sorted it yeah?

attitude attitude attitude

Did you even read what I said. :rolleyes:

The F/O started following me around while I was doing my preflight/turnround and asking me questions (instead of doing his job preparing the cockpit while the Captain was doing his preflight), I was answering his questions until the Captain stepped in.

You seriously think I should have told the Captain to leave the F/O, who was NOT doing his job, alone? :eek:

DirectAnywhere

23rd Jul 2011, 04:41

Thread drift but it depends on what sort of questions he was asking.

If both you and the F/O had a few minutes spare and he was asking questions to try and increase his own knowledge base then that should be encouraged.

If the F/O was being a tool and trying to show he knew more than you then he should have been booted back up to the flight deck sharpish.

airsupport

23rd Jul 2011, 04:50

If both you and the F/O had a few minutes spare and he was asking questions to try and increase his own knowledge base then that should be encouraged.

If the F/O was being a tool and trying to show he knew more than you then he should have been booted back up to the flight deck sharpish.

Definitely option B.

I put up with his cr@p until the Captain stepped in.

My point originally was that the safest way, NOT the cheapest, is to always have 2 independent checks, one by a Pilot and one by an LAME. :ok:

1me

23rd Jul 2011, 05:50

It might be pertinent to remember that some tech crew started their careers as engineers and some even became LAME's before taking up a seat in the flight deck.

I think our pilots are second to none and their skill and dedication is exemplary. Likewise, our engineers live in no-one's shadow and also display a level of skill, knowledge and professionalism that holds them IMO in the highest regard. Some may disagree.

framer

23rd Jul 2011, 11:03

Did you even read what I said

Yip. This bit of info was missing though

(instead of doing his job preparing the cockpit while the Captain was doing his preflight),

And that changed the meaning of it for me completely. I thought the F/O was doing the external preflight, when by the sounds of it, the F/O was shirking his duties. Hard to imagine getting out of your seat and going downstairs if all your ducks weren't in a row but stranger things have hapenned I guess.
I now revise my statement to "What a tool....glad there aren't many F/O's like that around anymore" :)

airsupport

23rd Jul 2011, 22:09

And that changed the meaning of it for me completely. I thought the F/O was doing the external preflight, when by the sounds of it, the F/O was shirking his duties. Hard to imagine getting out of your seat and going downstairs if all your ducks weren't in a row but stranger things have hapenned I guess.
I now revise my statement to "What a tool....glad there aren't many F/O's like that around anymore"

Okay, maybe I did not explain it in enough detail at first, I was trying to be brief, especially as it was a little off topic. ;)

I was looking after a B737 that had arrived in BNE and was departing again ASAP. While I was doing my preflight inspection the new Crew came out to the aircraft and the Captain started doing his preflight external inspection and the F/O was supposed to go upstairs and check/prepare the cockpit, however he stayed downstairs following me around asking questions until the Captain told him where to go and apologised to me. :ok:

After some 40 odd years in the Industry, working and flying all over the World, I have much respect for (most) Pilots, however even the best trained Pilots, even IF they were Engineers previously, will NOT have as much up to date Engineering knowledge as the LAMEs, the ONLY safe way to do preflight inspections is by using at least one Pilot AND at least one LAME. :ok:

ALAEA Fed Sec

23rd Jul 2011, 22:40

framer

24th Jul 2011, 03:05

even the best trained Pilots, even IF they were Engineers previously, will NOT have as much up to date Engineering knowledge as the LAMEs,

I agree whole-heartedly AirSupport. :ok:

Clipped

24th Jul 2011, 06:33

Has anyone advised Julia that her BBJ, being an NG, that there is a dollar to be saved by not needing a LAME for it's preflights?

the rim

24th Jul 2011, 07:07

not sure if the system of maint. has been change ...but a few years ago her or was it his, BBJ operating domestic sector still required a LAME to sign the RTS or what ever they call it on that aircraft...can someone update us on the present system of maint......would look good if her aircraft needed a LAME but not for the travelling voters....the rim

airsupport

24th Jul 2011, 07:57

As I guess is obvious from my last few posts here, I am just so against Qantas doing turnrounds without LAMES. :eek:

However I have been advised by Steve P that I am fighting a losing battle as Virgin and Jetstar already do them (which I did know).

I just can NOT believe safety standards have sunk so low, glad I am retired, and from now on I think I will travel by train. :{

ALAEA Fed Sec

24th Jul 2011, 08:22

It's not a losing battle it's just a tough one to counter. Stick together and we can fight anything.

airsupport

24th Jul 2011, 09:19

Okay Steve, maybe I misunderstood you, sorry. :ok:

I will start a new thread before I get accused of hijacking. ;)

Arnold E

24th Jul 2011, 11:33

Hey guys just be careful what you say about strikebreakers on here. I wouldn't be naming them either directly or in code. Let them do what they do, they have to look themselves in the face in the bathroom each morning.

Not so sure about that one Steve. I, for one, would like to know who these people are so that when they turn up in other sections of the industry, and they will, they can be treated appropriately in the crib room. It has been my experience that these type of people can and do look at themselves in the mirror each morning and dont see anything wrong. From my perspective, they cast no shadow.

emal140

24th Jul 2011, 11:44

Rim / Clipped
I am told that the BBJ will always require a LAME to sign the tech log as every sector is regarded as ETOPS. Something that is done as the aircraft may require to change destination in flight and that destination may be ETOPS.

E

the rim

24th Jul 2011, 23:59

thanks emal140

aveng

25th Jul 2011, 11:51

I am told that the BBJ will always require a LAME to sign the tech log as every sector is regarded as ETOPS. Something that is done as the aircraft may require to change destination in flight and that destination may be ETOPS.
Not exactly right - the a/c regularly do multiple leg training sorties to various ports without LAME involvement, so they can (technically) do without a LAME. However when on a VIP sector LAMEs always available. :ok:

ALAEA Fed Sec

26th Jul 2011, 06:28

Just latest update all. I'ts hard trying to keep it under 10 minutes when there is so much to say.

‪Qantas EA Update 4.wmv‬&rlm; - YouTube

airsupport

26th Jul 2011, 07:08

Very interesting, good luck with it all. :ok:

emal140

26th Jul 2011, 10:44

Sorry AVENG you are correct. I didn't put my first post too well. Yes LAME's are not required every flight, however all pax flights are treated ETOPS and last time I checked, the pilots are not trained (or allowed ??) to do ETOPS preflts. Is that correct?
E

hewlett

26th Jul 2011, 22:52

Fed Sec
Steve, given the prediction of a drawn out blue, has the LAME Union considered reopening the fund set up for the Sunni Boys. Build the coffers early and redistribute the cash later if not needed.
Maybe just a brain snap and not PIA related for the stood down skipper, but I imagine trying to retrieve lost wages through company channels will take a little longer than in the past, and thats only after QF admit to being wrong. There are still outstanding issues along these lines from last PIA.

ALAEA Fed Sec

26th Jul 2011, 23:10

We have 1600 members who will be involved in this blue. Initially a few here and there will be docked for stupid reasons by the airline but in the long run I think they will try and use this tactic on all. We will be doing everything to prevent the ability for management to dock wages but it will happen. Covering the 20 low paid Sunstate blokes was easy but it would be a hard task if they made up some rubbish and hit 1600 LAMEs at once. Following our instructions to the letter will close as many opportunities for them to dock and we will be very concious of sharing the load around.

I think it would however be an important gesture for us to chip in a few bucks for this one Pilot if and when he needs it. They did also support the Sunny blokes and as a token thing I think it worth it. I say that not becasue I feel more for a Pilot than any LAME. What has happened here presents an opportunity for us to blow up and expose all the truth about Qantas subsidisation of other parts of their business. I for the life of me cannot comprehend how the "Frequent Flyer" business can be profitable and the fully loaded aircraft with the highest International ticket prices on the market can be making a loss. This needs to be exposed because it is all looking a little smelly from here.

airsupport

26th Jul 2011, 23:30

Steve,

Excuse me asking, however as you know I am no longer in the Industry, and was never with Qantas, but reading the various posts here on PPRuNe not only this one and now this preflight business, but so may posts about the Pilots too, one would have to think that there are many major problems at Qantas. :(

Is it really that bad. :(

Suck&Blow

26th Jul 2011, 23:49

Hey Fed Sec,

Many of us are getting too old for a prolonged antagonistic approach to industrial relations when we can see that the Company has everything on its side.

What about a good fight with a fall back position of, for example,

LAME's On Demand = 1. Total Wage.
2. 6 Weeks Annual Leave.
3. Increased redundancy package for those expressing interest.
4. Only LAME's wanting to go, can go.
5. Anyone wanting to go, CAN go, not the old we will decide if you can go or not.

etc, etc, etc...

These are just some thoughts and I am interested to hear the reaction. When it all boils down, it is their Company and they will get what they want eventually, not matter what we do to drag it out.

GH has already been to a port somewhere south of ASP telling anyone that would listen that this is the Company's plans, so it will come sooner or later.

What do we all think? :) :{ :mad:

Stink Finger

27th Jul 2011, 00:08

When it all boils down, it is their Company and they will get what they want eventually, not matter what we do to drag it out.

Really suck and blow ?, I thought it was a negotiation, with approved PIA, where there is a fair chance more than one body with PIA is liasing with another.

When PIA can cause a massive amount of pressure on the Board, many many Boards have replaced management teams / CEO's in an effort to mend relationships with the employee groups.

We do not have a job without the company, the company does not have a company without skilled, experienced and loyal staff.

So broadly speaking you are in a very good negotiating position whilst ever the collective is the collective of skilled, experienced and loyal staff.

I would wager the company is ****ting themselves, facing off with the two very determined, tactical and very well financed groups (Pilots and LAMEs), look at the share price for one indicator of what has been achieved thus far.

Nassensteins Monster

27th Jul 2011, 01:33

When it all boils down, it is their Company and they will get what they want eventually, not matter what we do to drag it out.

Ok I'll bite.

Firstly S&B, it is not "their" company. It is the shareholder's company. They "manage" it - and I use the term loosely - on behalf of the shareholders. I hold a significant shareholding. I have not received a dividend in two years. I have seen my capital wither on the vine. I am appalled at the way "my" company is being "managed". And I am not alone. There are shareholders with vastly more at stake and with more resources than myself who also hold grave doubts. Some of those resources are quietly being deployed. Why? Because they have stopped listening to the glib assurances being delivered by some on the Board and the executive management. The pressure is not on us.

Secondly, where would we be now if two years ago we had the attitude "they will get what they want eventually, no matter what we do to drag it out"?

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th Jul 2011, 02:05

What about a good fight with a fall back position of, for example,

LAME's On Demand = 1. Total Wage.
2. 6 Weeks Annual Leave.
3. Increased redundancy package for those expressing interest.
4. Only LAME's wanting to go, can go.
5. Anyone wanting to go, CAN go, not the old we will decide if you can go or not.

Hey mate. I understand your suggestion and know that we have all sorts of members with different views and needs. I can't say what has been discussed before FWA other than some general comments and agree that compromise means movement on both sides. It will come out eventually and I think you will be absolutely shocked at the lengths we have gone to in order to resolve this dispute with an outcome somewhat like you have posted above.

Let me try and explain it in a way that doesn't express anything that has been said. Say for instance the exact compromise you have posted was put to the airline tomorrow. I would expect the answers to be -

LAME's On Demand (ok we will accept that but we also want you to give up all aircraft arrivals, pushouts, grd power connections and marshalling. The baggage handlers will call you out if there was an airworthiness defect only)

=

1. Total Wage. (No)
2. 6 Weeks Annual Leave. (No)
3. Increased redundancy package for those expressing interest. (No)
4. Only LAME's wanting to go, can go. (No)
5. Anyone wanting to go, CAN go, not the old we will decide if you can go or not. (No)

But we will give you 3% per annum.

These b@stards want a war mate however much you and I don't like it. They want it to further damage the International brand so they can justify other changes. They want you and I to pay for the 2008 dispute and they will go to any length to ensure that happens. They do not want you to have a job anymore. Please don't despair. They don't hold all the cards and their management team are leaking their plans like a sieve. They can't run an airline properly, don't expect them to be able to outsmart 1600 LAMEs and the same amount of Tech Crew in an Industrial dispute.

gruntyfen

27th Jul 2011, 02:47

The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson comes to mind. The constant 'your too ignorant to understand mentality' directed to unions and employee's.

Clipped

27th Jul 2011, 09:04

In Steve we trust.

In Q management I do not.

S&B, I am amazed as to why some (very few) members still feel a conciliatory approach with our management is the right approach, when it is very, very clear as to the strategic direction we're heading involves a direct attack on your T&Cs.

the rim

27th Jul 2011, 09:45

I think many members think we may and hope we will be able to resolve this EB without much bloodshed....but WE do believe in what the ALAEA is putting forward and will do whats required when the time comes....but most just want to get on with our work and carry the great name of Qantas forward....the rim

SpannerTwister

29th Jul 2011, 11:41

What's happening ??

Who got stood down, by whom, and what was "their" reason for doing this ?

If they object to one of us reading the MM's twice, I'd suggest we ALL KEEP reading them once before we do ANY job :E :E :E

(AS, OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS DO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE QEPM) :ok:

Next time we do an ANC / CHK-1 there's a sh!t-load of AMM reading to do !!

Do we have the "Boeing approved" rags to wipe the oleos ?

That'll take 30 minutes to research on it's own !!

And of course, printed AMM are ONLY valid for the engineer who printed them out for HIS job, if you want the same information YOU have to research it....Each and every time.

Got GRN numbers on all the oil / skydrol dispensers ? What about the grease guns, have they got GRN's for the grease and calibration stickers to ensure that they put out the required pressure ?

Got an AMM reference for replacing a blown-out grease nipple ?

Oh...I can see the computer system going into even further melt-down :E :ok: :E :ok: :E

ST

ALAEA Fed Sec

29th Jul 2011, 12:04

Biffa in Perth stood down for one day for taking PIA in the form of a partial workban. His PIA was to read each procedure twice before commencing a task. All legal from both sides.

Just be careful what you suggest we do on here, company are watching closely and have be known to bring stuff posted on sites into court rooms. If you just do you job as you normally do you should be right.

I will raise one thing though that has been escalated tonight. Two weeks ago it was highlighted to management that there was a problem with a cabin log, three defects were reported on one coupon. It was suggested that they advise Cabin Crew that the approved procedure was one defect per entry.

Whilst the problem was being highlighted, another LAME advised a Senior manager that he had sent several emails to management regarding this issue and nothing had been done about it. The Cabin Crew member who made the illegal entry is not under investigation. The manager who did nothing about it is not either. But I was advised tonight that the fu**en clowns running the show are investigating the LAME who reported it, but did it in breach of policy because he shouldn't have made the complaint via email, he should have filled out a form 500.

They are on the warpath guys so if they are so fu**cken stupid to target a LAME because in their view, he filled out the wrong form, make sure you are filling out the correct form for every error or near misss you see.

Arnold E

29th Jul 2011, 12:19

God, I'm glad I or my son dont work for QANTAS these days. A few years ago I would have given my eye teeth to work for Q, Wow how things have changed, I wonder if the top management think they are/have done a good job. If there are any management types on this forum, please answer the question.

Jethro Gibbs

29th Jul 2011, 12:46

Just seen this reported on lateline what a grubby company Qantas is.:eek:

Arnold E

29th Jul 2011, 12:52

What report???

ACT Crusader

29th Jul 2011, 13:08

Arnold - Lateline tonight had a report on PIA, Senator X proposed bill, and the "standing down" of a LAMe and Capt A

Arnold E

29th Jul 2011, 13:13

Ok thanks, just saw the end of report, Thanks to Nick (Senator X)

nosebleed999

29th Jul 2011, 23:37

My understanding is that to work in Ausralia you need an appropriate visa. I understand that foreign cabin crew working for Jetstar Asia are doing a tour of duty domestically on Jetstar Australia. The issue is not pay and conditions that these workers receive but foreign workers taking Australian jobs. Allowing the free transfer of labour across borders Through time and market forceswill have the effect of reducing pay and conditions for all workers in Australia as the pool of workers is far greater in asia then here. Conceivably this could be done with Licensed Engineers as well. The new licensing system seems to support this process.
Fed Sec this issue needs to be addressed through the combined weight and association of ALAEA the Australian pilots federation and the Flight Attendent Association. I would think that this use of foreign labour is in breach of Australian Law and requires a legal response.

Longbow25

30th Jul 2011, 05:45

One would think that the operation of this "domestic sector" may be in breech of visa and other "immigration" type issues.

It would certainly seem as though the issue is worthy of some professional advice.

ACT Crusader

30th Jul 2011, 12:01

Jethro Gibbs

5th Aug 2011, 06:48

Has this action died a death or what.

Ngineer

5th Aug 2011, 10:10

It's just the calm before the storm. Enjoy it while it lasts.

mahatmacoat

5th Aug 2011, 10:19

Has this action died a death or what.

I am thinking that they might be waiting until after 24 August. Better to not give Joyce an excuse to send more work offshore and if we take action after then because they have attacked us the peoples will be on our side.

Arnold E

5th Aug 2011, 12:37

I am thinking that they might be waiting until after 24 August.
In my opinion, it's all over by then.:sad:

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 20:15

I am thinking that they might be waiting until after 24 August.

Steve P,

I do NOT want to know any secrets, well NOT posted on here anyway ;) , but what is so special about August 24 ? :confused:

Just my Wife, and some other Family members are booked to fly Qantas on August 25 .:uhoh::eek:

Ngineer

5th Aug 2011, 22:26

but what is so special about August 24 ?

Why it's the 236th day of the year in the Gregorian calender.

It is also the anniversary of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and the Annivesary of Air Transat Flt 236 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic ocean in 2004. (And the terror explosions on the airliners near Moscow in 2006).

Google more, post less!!!:ok:

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 22:35

Google more, post less!!!

Thanks for NOTHING as$hol* :mad:

I hardly ever post now because of people like you. :mad:

Just on these 2 threads about QF because as I said, IF you could read, my Wife is flying Qantas on the 25th and I am worried about all the talk here on PPRuNe about something BIG happening on the 24th. :mad:

Longbow25

5th Aug 2011, 22:46

Unfortunately it's people like Ngineer who have made these pages little more than drivel in the greater scheme of things.

Post a contrary view and you are branded a company stooge, ask for information and you are vilified.

You seriously have to wonder at times how we manage to maintain a professional appearance when we have so many numskulls in our industry.

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 22:54

Post a contrary view and you are branded a company stooge, ask for information and you are vilified.

Maybe I was a little harsh, but I was just trying to find out what is the big deal about August 24th everyone is talking about, PURELY because I have already booked my Wife to travel QF on the 25th, NO sinister reason, just concerned that she will be able to fly QF that day, and safely. :ok:

pa28capt

5th Aug 2011, 23:11

August 24th is the day Alan Joke announces his plans for Qantas' future, or should I say Onestar's future. No immediate impact expected, however, in the months after expect major changes.

Ngineer

5th Aug 2011, 23:12

Unfortunately it's people like Ngineer who have made these pages little more than drivel in the greater scheme of things.

Thanks for NOTHING as$hol

Geeez!! Talk about highly strung!

What ever happened to some ppl's sense of humour?? Lighten up a little.:O

ALAEA Fed Sec

5th Aug 2011, 23:13

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 23:23

What ever happened to some ppl's sense of humour?? Lighten up a little.

I have a very good sense of humour thank you, but NOT where the safety of my Wife is concerned.

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 23:27

August 24th is the day Alan Joke announces his plans for Qantas' future, or should I say Onestar's future. No immediate impact expected, however, in the months after expect major changes.

Thank you, that was what I was trying to find out, though more details would be nice. :ok:

Hopefully as ''her who must be obeyed'' is flying out on the 25th and returning the 31st she will be okay. :ok:

airsupport

5th Aug 2011, 23:32

I think Ngineer was just pointing out that lots of bad things have happened on August 24. Qantas are announcing changes to their business on that day. I don't think he was having a go at anyone apart from the CEO.

Okay, thank you also Steve. :ok:

Maybe I am a little too sensitive when it comes to the safety of my Wife, but I have had her for 42 years and I do not want to have to find another one. ;)

And YES there is NO danger she will read this. :ok:

Ngineer

6th Aug 2011, 04:20

Not having a go at anyone, or anyone's wife for that matter. That's very poor form and taste. My comments do not centre around the travel plans of someones wife.

Fedsec is spot-on as usual.

As I said before, too many highly strung people who need to relax a little.:=

ejectx3

6th Aug 2011, 04:27

As if anyone would do anything to endanger passengers at anytime. What a ridiculous proposition.

Ngineer

6th Aug 2011, 04:45

Thanks mate.

I've seen Larry and Curly this morning. Just waiting on Mo to arrive.....

airsupport

6th Aug 2011, 05:01

As I said before, too many highly strung people who need to relax a little.

Okay, seems I was right at first, I take back my apology. :rolleyes:

Seems Longbow25 was right about you. ;)

amos2

6th Aug 2011, 06:07

Aug 24th was also the start date of the 1989 pilots dispute! :=

airsupport

6th Aug 2011, 06:17

Aug 24th was also the start date of the 1989 pilots dispute!

Sounds like it may be the start of another big dispute this year. :(

NOT just Pilots though this time.

Best of luck to ALL involved. :ok:

Long Bay Mauler

6th Aug 2011, 11:13

The dispute began on 18 August 1989.

Wikipedia:ok:

airsupport

7th Aug 2011, 04:48

Between this thread, the business about the proposed LAMEless turnrounds, and all the other threads about what is happening to Pilots and everyone at Qantas, I find it hard to work out what on Earth is going on at Qantas. :(

I was talking to one of my Brothers-in-Law this morning, he is a Business Man but nothing to do with Airlines, but he is a VERY frequent flyer both Domestically and Internationally, and he said Qantas standards have definitely slipped of late although he still uses them where he can.

He was very unhappy to hear that there is even more cost cutting and bad news expected on the 24th, especially about the LAMEless turnrounds.

I asked him who he thought was to blame, and to my surprise he said the Qantas Board. :confused:

When I asked why he said that when they contracted AJ they must have known his history in the Industry, so he thinks that is what the Board wanted, someone to turn Qantas into just another LCC. :(

I hope that is wrong, but it does make sense sadly. :(

Nassensteins Monster

7th Aug 2011, 13:05

Arnold E

7th Aug 2011, 13:08

I want you to ruin the surprise, tell me?

airsupport

7th Aug 2011, 20:12

Airsupport

Do a little research into Leigh Clifford's time at Rio Tinto.

Highlights:

1) a supposed "union buster"

2) presided over a MASSIVE fall in the share price.

(How much? I wont ruin the surprise for you.)

Okay, done that, in doing that I also found another Company that he is involved with and that is where my Brother-in-Law must know him from. :(

Good luck to ALL at Qantas. :ok:

MR WOBBLES

8th Aug 2011, 08:57

Just to get this thread back on track,Thanks for the pen I hope It has black ink.

Long Bay Mauler

8th Aug 2011, 09:41

Qantas have claimed that their intended use of CAT A licences is none of our business because they would be covered by the AME unions and it may come as no surprise but the AME unions have agreed with them. They all claim that they are just AME’s with licences, not LAMEs and can’t be covered by us because they only sign for their own work. It is clearly the intention of the airline to split licence coverage between two Agreements so neither group can press claims effectively. We have advised the other unions and Qantas that we will be covering CAT A licence holders should they ever be engaged by the airline but our primary position is for them not to be engaged at all during the life of the Agreement.

I don't think that the powers that be, and some of them are LAMEs themselves,quite realise what the acronym LAME actually stands for.

Just for those that don't know,LAMEs are AMEs with licences,who can sign for their own work as well as unlicenced AMEs.

What hope is there if the people running the show don't even understand the new system.

Jethro Gibbs

8th Aug 2011, 11:03

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not a fact that the ALAEA has members that are AMEs example many at Avalon / Forstaff.

Nassensteins Monster

8th Aug 2011, 11:30

I joined the ALAEA when I was an AME. Back when there was a clearly defined career path: apprentice, AME, LAME.

Bootstrap1

8th Aug 2011, 12:31

Some posters did warn that Nassenstien was a smiling assassin. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all his doing for a leaner meaner, Ryanair type engineering workforce.
I can't wait to see a bag chucker do the arrival and pushback on the dugong. And no doubt the company will try to force these extra duties and responsibilites onto the semi-skilled workers for no extra cash.
So when the engineering functions pre-departure are complete and then the engineering crew go back to the jetbase, a defect will pop up with 5 minutes to go as they always do. Which will no doubt cause a delay as the tech crew radio ops, who call MCC, who then calls Tango, who then calls the engineers, who the take the 5 minute trip back to the terminal.
Put the bridge in work the defect blah, blah blah.

This will be Qantas efficiency at its best.

No doubt the 787 if it ever gets into service will be problem free form the start and will never need departing engineers. Good work you clowns.

division1

8th Aug 2011, 13:41

Well, we have been screaming out for months for management to
clarify precisely what changes they had in mind for engineering.
None of their assclown plans surprise me.
Baggage handlers arriving and chocking the aircraft is no big deal.
What really sucks is the way it turns into bagchuckers deciding when
to call out the lame when he spots a leaking fluid, missing fastener
or odd tyre damage, etc.
Worlds best practice? who are they trying to kid with that? why can't
they call it for what it is?
Anything other than worlds cheapest and least safe practice is a lie.

ACT Crusader

8th Aug 2011, 15:22

Ben Schneiders article on the Age website

QANTAS has proposed cutting engineering jobs in confidential talks, a union has said, as it warns there could be ''widespread industrial action'' by the end of this month if the union is unhappy with a strategic review.

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas said that in talks, Qantas management had discussed moves to shift some work from the union's members to other, less-skilled workers and the airline said this could result in 128 redundancies.

Mr Purvinas said if Qantas went ahead with all the changes it has put forward in talks over a new wages deal, about 350 licensed engineers could be made redundant in coming years. He said confidentiality requirements in Fair Work Australia talks had prevented the union publicly discussing the airline's proposals until now, but talks moved out of the tribunal last Friday.

Last night a Qantas spokesman would not comment directly on job losses, saying it would not discuss ''specific details of negotiations'', but added many of the claims are ''pure speculation''.

In a speech last month Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce flagged changes. He said new CASA rules meant some work done by licensed engineers could now be done by ''suitably qualified'' employees who ''do not require the same degree of training and specialisation''.

''This means we can retain our licensed engineers in their specialist roles, and provide new opportunities for other maintenance staff.''

He said the airline's maintenance and repair costs were ''among the least efficient and most expensive in the world''.

Mr Purvinas, in a circular to members distributed yesterday, said ''a regulation allowing something does not make it mandatory''. He also told members that ''widespread industrial action now hinges on what Qantas will announce on the 24th of August''.

That review will focus on the airline's international business with major changes expected.

Mr Purvinas told The Age that Qantas was trying to lower standards as part of its review and have the ''unfettered right'' to replace ''highly experienced'' licensed engineers. ''I fully suspect Alan Joyce will be trying to turn Qantas into Ryanair, something we are not prepared to accept,'' he said.

Qantas engineers warn of strikes (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/qantas-engineers-warn-of-strikes-20110808-1ij9o.html#ixzz1US1ZPkMU)

airsupport

8th Aug 2011, 19:51

He said the airline's maintenance and repair costs were ''among the least efficient and most expensive in the world''.

That must be Irish for ''the SAFEST in the World''. :ok:

qf 1

8th Aug 2011, 21:25

aren't alot of the bag chuckers already on more money than most AME's and some low grade LAME's:ooh:

blubak

8th Aug 2011, 23:46

Am i correct in saying that not too many years ago a certain ceo tried to turn Aer Lingus into a 'RYANAIR'? Dont think the effeciencies did much there,in fact the public snubbed that airline very quickly & they were lucky to survive.
On another subject,considering that right now there are so many engineers that would like a redundancy is it prudent to oppose it or should we be trying to make it benefit us-just a thought,definitely not saying it is the right way to go and also with the state of the USA(this is something the company is now going to highlight),is widespread industrial action the right way to go,i know Steve will have this in mind but maybe worth a few comments.Cheers.

Nassensteins Monster

9th Aug 2011, 00:16

aren't alot of the bag chuckers already on more money than most AME's and some low grade LAME'shttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif

Yeah, but they earn it in overtime.

The rumoured plan is to get rid of all QF employed bag chuckers except leading hands and replace them all with casuals from QFs new labour hire company. At a much lower hourly rate of course. I'm betting the number "457" appears somewhere...

Ngineer

9th Aug 2011, 00:36

What I don't understand is why have a bag-chucker do the arrival, when a suitably qualified engineer will be doing the walk-around (etops & check 2 transits) as soon as it gets on bay?? Either this is a clear lack of insight into what we actually do, or just a step closer to a more sinister grand plan.

aren't alot of the bag chuckers already on more money than most AME's

And some cleaners to (so I am told).

Romulus

9th Aug 2011, 02:08

NM, Ng: right there you have the making of a great soundbite that resonates.

Newsreader: "Mr SP today said, "look, I know we have to compete in a global market but let's be serious here, currently the people who load and unload bagga and people who clean the aircraft are earning mroe than the guys who ensure they are mechanically reliable. What do you think that means?"

Now THAT is a strong, easily stated and easily repeatable message.

Come up with nmore like that (assuming it's true) and start getting that out there.

Jethro Gibbs

9th Aug 2011, 06:54

Notice 043/2011 - ALAEA Members Forstaff Aviation - Reduction of Union Right of Entry (http://www.alaea.asn.au/notices/notices-2011/285-notice-0432011-alaea-members-forstaff-aviation-reduction-of-union-right-of-entry.html)
They were such good friends at the beginning now one of them is Forstaff management they seem to have turned on them.:eek:

the rim

9th Aug 2011, 09:56

So what if a bag chucker gets more than a AME or low paid LAME the reason is to get the LAME away from this job,same with the pre flt,why have a LAME standing around waiting for pushback......NOT SAYING AND READ THIS.....I dont agree with it...... just stating facts,and before "airsupport" gets on with his box of tissues saying I have given up....well maybe I have.The" LAME-on- Demand" is coming like the one man transit did, and the refueller doing the fuel has......and yes SP we applauded you in mel for keeping the two men 767 transit alive,but we all know what happenes in real life,thats why we are in the **** now....go on attack me now.....The Rim

600ft-lb

9th Aug 2011, 10:33

The whole exercise, not just the ALAEA's battle, but also the AIPA's, has nothing to do with anything except breaking the unions base and leverage. This battle has been prepared for since 2008, the purpose is to drag it out as long as possible.

It's Oldmeadow inc IR strategy as per previous campaigns. They are not interested in negotiations they are interested in what its going to cost them. If it costs them too much they'll say 'yes heres a deal' like last time. If it costs them nothing they'll keep it going a bit longer.

There's no need to get emotional about anything. For Oldmeadow and Sue Bussell and Chris Nassenstein its just a job, part of the job is working out a deal which benefits your employer moreso then it benefits the workers you employ. They throw a few curly ones at you and hope you bite back. A few numbers of redundancies are put out there in the hope you're all so scared you'll demand you union cave in and accept anything.

It's just one big game to them, they don't care, an executive or consultants fee for the year is already locked away, to them its just another scalp to put in their LinkedIn profile. There is nothing in our current management's team that has anything to do with anything except reducing costs.

Reducing costs whilst CPI is going up means cutting. That's the metric our short term KPI driven management are focused on and that's what they aim for. You may aim to fix the defect and prevent a delay or you may aim to do the job safely, properly with years of knowledge and experience behind you but that doesn't translate into money for a KPI driven manager so its disregarded. 2 totally different goals which are incompatible with one another.. Maybe sometime in the past they were compatible, but it hasn't been compatible since the career stream for an engineer stopped being a segment management position and finished at a local DMM level.

Management don't care about previous culture, none of our current management have been brought up in Qantas so they don't care. Nassenstein is bringing his Air Transat and Air NZ experience and applying it to Qantas. Joyce is applying his Jetstar greenfields experiment which is gifted with free cash and no bills and applying it to the the bill payer.

And just remember the longer the 'dispute' lasts, the more the consultants get paid. Whose interest is it in to settle quickly ?

the rim

9th Aug 2011, 11:36

hey 600 mate its been going on for a lot longer the PPM was changed in '03 for the "LAME-ON-DEMAND" so its not new http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/icon8.gif

Take five

9th Aug 2011, 12:45

First it was Geoff , now it is Alan.
Rumor has it that he has got his exit papers.
Seems like ex CBA CEO has his spot.
Prostate problems is the excuse.

Who will get Cliff's gig?

More mushrooms in the dark.
Planes will still break and we will still fix them.
Chill out and don't worry about what the threats are.
It is all buggery and bull****.
We will prevail again.

They haven't got a clue about the future, and the shareholders are worried, especially with all the other global dramas happening at the moment.

Prediction 1
Jetstar is about to self implode and the public is well aware of the scam which is being perpetrated at the moment.
They are sick of buying a Qantas ticket and ending up on a second class product.

Keep strong and prepare for battle.

We will win, because we are right, and the punters deserve better than they are getting now.

T.F.:)

Hugh Mungous

9th Aug 2011, 13:06

same with the pre flt,why have a LAME standing around waiting for pushback......NOT SAYING AND READ THIS.....I dont agree with it......

Rim I feel your frustration, but the reason I believe I'm standing around prior to push back is to carry out the final walk around, ensuring all the doors and panels are correctly locked and faired, there is no undocumented skin damage around the doors, servicing panels, to static ports or probes that has occured AFTER the engineer and tech crew have completed their inspection. Ensure there are no fuel leaks from access panels, sticks, sump drains or slat track housing drains following refueling operations.. The gear pins have been removed, and I'm available in 10 seconds to attempt to maintain departure schedule if any last minute issues arise in the cabin or flight deck. I also believe that during the departure an engineer should be available to monitor the aircraft for any anomalies that routinely occur during engine start and after power transfer.

I understand that the regulator, and other operators have deemed the need to have engineers carry out these functions no longer necessary. But I would like to think an airline that still trades on its reputation for safety would find a place for engineers to perform these tasks as opposed to "appropriately qualified staff".. I won't hold my breath though..The race to "world's minimum standard" sorry, "world's best practice" continues..

lame1

9th Aug 2011, 15:09

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/67020/Laffer_Lecture_Sue_Bussell_190410.pdf

Interesting reading

the rim

10th Aug 2011, 00:24

yes I agree all of the above.....:ok:

WheelsandBrakes

10th Aug 2011, 02:17

Read the SB take on IR. I am much more informed now and agree that my wages are the reason QF is spiralling down!:} Give me a break!

There are plenty of other businesses out there who, rather than focussing on fighting their employees to keep their wages down, actually focus on providing a product that constantly pulls in new customers and keeps current ones coming back - unlike QF.

Another excuse to take the focus off the crap decisions this Board and the previous one under GD have made. Just hurry up and give us the redundancy papers - we will leave and the wages argument will go away.

Ngineer

10th Aug 2011, 04:30

The" LAME-on- Demand" is coming like the one man transit did, and the refueller doing the fuel has......

This sort of attitude promotes the old cliche "sometimes we are our own worst enemy".

the rim

10th Aug 2011, 09:25

I have been around a long time and seen a lot of changes ....most not for the good of aircraft maintenance...but let me tell you I have seen when the dom went to the one man turnaround,the refuellers put the fuel on with no Lame present left the docket then the Lame used the full ext of his/her headset to see if doors were closed before pushback.....so yes it might be an old cliche and its been in use for a long time.....I dont know why I sometimes respond to the "prune" sometimes it makes me feel that I have passed something on that is useful but when I see the responces I thing why the fu%f did I bother.....The Rim

airsupport

10th Aug 2011, 20:23

just stating facts,and before "airsupport" gets on with his box of tissues saying I have given up

Sure sounds like you have. :(

I sincerely hope that most LAMEs at Qantas have not thrown in the towel so easily, you NEED to fight this. :ok:

I dont know why I sometimes respond to the "prune" sometimes it makes me feel that I have passed something on that is useful but when I see the responces I thing why the fu%f did I bother.....The Rim

Yes, I too wonder why you bother. ;)

Ngineer

11th Aug 2011, 01:19

Fair enough rim, but personally I can't sit back and watch things deteriorate at the rate that it is atm, nor will the majority of my colleagues.

And there aren't too many young LAME's left in my dept, you are not alone in that boat. Most have many years up their sleeve, and have seen alot of change over the years at the coalface. (More than most of the managers there anyway).

airsupport

11th Aug 2011, 01:25

personally I can't sit back and watch things deteriorate at the rate that it is atm, nor will the majority of my colleagues.

Good..... :ok::ok::ok:

the rim

11th Aug 2011, 09:46

bandit2

11th Aug 2011, 10:11

Just received a chain letter from a fellow QF employee. Thought people might be interested. I've posted it on another thread also. We need to spread the word.

QANTAS has managed to destroy 43% of it's brand value in just 2 short years.

In the 7 July issue of BRW it was stated that QANTAS has managed to destroy 43% of it's brand value in just 2 short years.
90 years to build a brand, 2 years to destroy 43% of it.
I would love to take credit for the following reply to one of Ben Sandilands blogs. I don't know who wrote it, and I apologise if it has been posted on here before, but I hadn't seen it until today. It provides a very inciteful synopsis of how we have found ourselves in this position of fighting for our very existence, and pulls no punches on who is to blame.
Read on.

----------
Some of you may be aware of the media attention recently coming upon Qantas- especially from it's CEO, Alan Joyce.
Joyce came to the Qantas Group to run Jetstar, and had a small stint in Ansett, and a large stint in Ryanair previous to joining Qantas. Joyce has in past few months called Qantas pilots "Recalcitrant", "Kamikaze", and "Rogue", as well as accusing them of "Living on cloud cuckoo land". The reason- Qantas pilots are asking to ensure Qantas pilot jobs remain in Australia, as there is gathering evidence that Qantas wants to move more of it's operations offshore. Qantas Engineers are also asking for the same guarantees. So far, Qantas has refused to negotiate at all on these asks from the pilots and engineers.
Joyce was the golden haired boy of the previous CEO Geoff Dixon, the man who masterminded the attempted private Equity buyout of Qantas in 2007. Thankfully that did not get through. If it did, Qantas would have defaulted on the debt it was going to be loaded with, and would most certainly not exist any more. Dixon stood to make $60m out of the deal, and Joyce in excess of $20m.
In the Dixon/Joyce years, decision have been made that have severely damaged the Qantas brand, including forcing passengers onto Jetstar without choice, closing in-house maintenance of engines which has resulted in a 180% increase in engine failures in the past 5 years, and not buying the right aircraft to modernise Qantas and allow route expansion. To add, Qantas has subisided the Jetstar operation from the start including paying for maintenance, payment of landing fees, fuel and terminal charges, and seat subsidies.
As a result, Qantas share prices are below their 1995 issue price of $2.00.
Joyce was in Singapore recently for the International Air Transport Association (IATA) conference and blasted the pilots and engineers as being to blame for the tanking share price. He also stated that there would be no more investment in Qantas until it "started to return it's cost of capital". As one commentator put it, this is akin to "not spending any money on your car to make it run until it starts".
To put some of this into context and to show how badly Qantas management have stuffed up, here is some quotes from Qantas management and what has subsquently happened:
"Jetstar will not operate more than 15 aircraft" G.Dixon 2004. It now operates more than 70 aircraft.
"Jetstar will never operate internationally" G Dixon 2004. It has taken many Qantas routes from it's parent company to Hawaii , Japan , Bali and other ports.
"Emirates is not a threat as it is not a growth model" G Dixon 2001. Emirates now operates more than 60 services per week to Australia and flies to 26 destinations in Europe .
"The B777 is an old technology aircraft" G Dixon 2006. The B777 could fly 90% of the routes currently flown by the B747 with a 30% reduction in fuel burn and is flown by every major airline in the world.
"There is no money in freight" G Dixon 2004. Qantas now operates a full freighter B767 aircraft flown by contract pilots as well as full time contracts with Atlas Air Cargo.
All the while Qantas pilots get assigned Long Service Leave because of a surplus in pilot numbers due to the outsourcing of flying previously done by Qantas pilots to Jetstar, Atlas cargo, Jetconnect across the Tasman, and Jetstar Asia.
You will find below a succienct, precise, summary of where and why Qantas finds itself- losing money and losing market share. This was written as a response to a blog by Ben Sandilands on crikey.com <http://crikey.com> .
------------------------------------------
Qantas pilots and engineers ask for your support and patience this year while we try to end the rot, keep Australian jobs in Australia and attempt to save a national icon from corporate greed.
--------------------------------------------
Of all the elements a board and a CEO must manage and protect, surely building and protecting the brand of a company must be their number one priority.
Clifford came out swinging on the weekend saying the focus of the board and CEO must be, and is, on the share price and return of capital. But it is the brand that drives the share price, not the other way around. Everything else flows from that.
If you followed that logic Jetstar never would have been started and Virgin wouldn’t be spending a fortune relaunching and building the brand. If Virgin can do that, why cant Qantas?
Let’s look at the facts. This is marketing and business studies 101.
Qantas from the inception of the very first brand surveys decades ago consistently and without exception, year in year out, always lead the pack as the NUMBER ONE BRAND in Australia . This was not just in terms of brand recognition but also in relation to the more significant drivers of financial success in the market place; trust and emotional attachment for the brand.
The Qantas brand was pure 100%, 24 carat, rolled gold.
This was Qantas’s number one asset. It still should be. Bigger than all the aircraft and other tangibles combined. Every airline has plant and equipment, but only Qantas had that number one position, the ultimate in brand power.
After sitting at number one for decades Qantas is no longer even in the top ten. But worse than that here’s a report from Readers Digest annual Most Trusted Brands survey way back in 2008.

” … the iconic flying kangaroo, Qantas, dropped 47 spots in consumer confidence.”
You read right. In 2008 Qantas dropped 47 spots.
That massive drop in the brand if quantified in dollar terms is so much more than the net worth Jetstar has added to the Qantas group.
So what happened. How did the best, most loved, number one brand in Australia for decades crash and burn. So quickly. So badly.
There are two main reasons for this. And they have names, the first being Dixon , the other Joyce. The destruction of the brand has zippo to do with the current biffo with the unions.
1/ When Dixon took over as CEO the Qantas brand was still riding high and proud at number one. It was untouchable. He was seen by many as marketing and PR genius. Yet the destruction of the Qantas brand can be traced back through these exact same brand surveys to having commenced during his tenure. It is no coincidence that this rapid decline coincides EXACTLY with the rise of Jetstar under the Qantas umbrella.
BA when they held seats on the board warned Dixon an in house low cost carrier would cannibalize the parent brand. Dixon thought he knew better.
We all know the story. As soon as Jetstar was launched Qantas ****ed off many local communities with the haste it pulled out of so many key domestic and international markets and forced people who were used to, and wanted full service, onto Jetstar with an appalling lack of service.
Everyone knows Jetstar is Qantas. Each and every time people feel ripped off or mishandled by Jetstar, which is often, the knife is dug deeper and twisted further into what is left of the Qantas brand.
Just ask any of the tens of thousands of passengers forced to fly Jetstar (because Qantas has pulled out) to destinations like the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast , Tasmania , Hamilton Island , Bali or Japan . They don’t blame Jetstar, they blame Qantas.
2/ From the day Jetstar was conceived fleet renewal and investment in the mainline product ceased almost completely. While Jetstar got an entirely new fleet of fuel efficient A320/A330 aircraft “full fare” passengers on “full service” Qantas were stuck with clapped out, gas gusling, dirty and unreliable aircraft. The new Dallas debacle is a perfect example.
As you point out Ben, when Qantas could have, should have been renewing its mainline fleet, such as buying B777 as did all of its main competitors, there was no money or motivation as all the focus and cash were thrown at Jetstar.
Clifford and Joyce had already earmarked the first B787s for Jetstar, meaning Qantas mainline will not be seeing any new aircraft for many years. Just who has been subsidising who? This only serves to compound the destruction of the brand.
Joyce is now the biggest most vocal detractor of Qantas brand, constantly screaming hysterically that long haul is in serious trouble.
What would the books look like if Qantas had, as it should have as the premium brand, a fleet of all new and super efficient aircraft while the budget arm Jetstar was stuck with the old aircraft from the current mainline fleet.
A/ Jetstar would no longer be making money
B/ Qantas mainline would be making money
C/ Qantas would have a product people expect of a full service carrier and it would be growing its market share.
No one at Qantas management either remembers, nor understands, these important lessons from history.

The only player who appears to do so is John Borghetti. You can see he ‘gets it’ by his determination to invest substantially in a full service product, to grow markets such as this morning’s tie up with Singapore Airlines, the business and the Virgin brand.
He knows where Qantas is vulnerable and it is insightful too that he is branding Virgin Australia as the Australian airline and he is vocal about returning jobs to Australia service his aircraft here.

GodDamSlacker

11th Aug 2011, 10:36

A few interesting points.....
Qantas say the International Operation is loosing money hand over fist, Domestic operation and Jetstar are making money...
So you have Domestic operation, which basically operates on one man transits, turn arounds and pushbacks for B767/B737/A330 and Management want to reduce costs even further and have a LAME less tarmac, no engineer there for the majority of transits (except ETOPS)...
Yet over at the International Terminal...the loss making operation, a single A380 arrives on a 6 hours transit with 14 engineers and 2 to 3 LAME's????
Surely if Qantas Management are going to reduce costs wouldnt you look at the loss making operation first???
If the A380 requires that much manpower to transit the aircraft, why would you by 20 of the Pigs? A quick way to bankruptcy!!!

So to the ALAEA how do you agree and sell this to the Domestic guys, who during the day, transit a variety of aircraft, 737/767/A330 and maintain a high dispatch rate and I am sure the majority fix alot of stuff they see broken and save QF heaps off $$ and help provide a produce to the flying public, yet when they look across the tarmac and see a total loss and a huge waste of manpower to try and provide a produce that isnt paying its way.....

Feel free to shoot me down but the reality of this is substantiated over and over....
Who is more cost effective? A domestic LAME handling between 10 to 12 aircraft per shift or a group of 14 engineers handling one aircraft on a 6 hour transit which is operating heavy discounted fares?
A cold hard look at this LAME less tarmac should be, one aircraft, all aircraft, from B737 thru to the Sky Pig.....How many times has management said new technology requires less maintenance thus the B738 and A380 should have LAME less tarmac handling....:D

airsupport

11th Aug 2011, 11:12

airsupport i have not chucked the towel in,while you were overseas working,and more than likely working under the conditions we are trying to stop I was here working against CASA and ALL the other operators in an industry review[including people from AN] before the new reg's were IN draft form,so its a bit of a smack in the face to say I have thrown the towel in...however I have seen first hand how these operators[not just qf]work,and now we have a situation where at the dom and int ramps we have QF on one bay and another operator next to them operating differently.....AND I SAY I DONT AGREE WITH IT BUT ITS THE WAY WE ARE HEADED....so what can we do....well how about putting some checks in there so it can operate safely...because IMHO I dont think we can stop it....The Rim

No matter how I read your comments, it shows that you have indeed thrown in the towel, given up the fight, whatever you want to call it. :(

Yes I worked off shore quite a lot later in my career, but ONLY with Aussie registered aircraft and operating under the CASA system with my CASA Licence. :ok:

I was in the USA on one of the contracts when Virgin Blue started up and could NOT believe they decided to have LAMEless tarmacs. :mad:

Cargo744

11th Aug 2011, 11:50

I was in the USA on one of the contracts when Virgin Blue started up and could NOT believe they decided to have LAMEless tarmacs. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Thanks Airsupport.. Care to back that up with any facts?

Romulus

11th Aug 2011, 12:34

If the A380 requires that much manpower to transit the aircraft, why would you by 20 of the Pigs? A quick way to bankruptcy!!!

I think you may find they're training up a crew to handle rather more of the fleet than the current number. i.e. planning ahead.

Just a guess...

lame1

11th Aug 2011, 13:34

Romulus why defend or make a position when you clearly havent a clue what your talking about.Definate management material.The A380 chews up more manpower than any other aircraft.Of course you can go with less but the hold items will increase and the customer satisfaction level will decrease.Previous and current management havent a clue what is actually required manpower wise to push this aircraft through each port.All they are concerned about is lowering the cost.The board should be horrified that so many fools are actually trying and failing to run this business.Most if not all things introduced that actually work have been through the actions of the guys on the floor.Every time a manager decides to try his hand he fails dismally.

airsupport

11th Aug 2011, 19:11

I was in the USA on one of the contracts when Virgin Blue started up and could NOT believe they decided to have LAMEless tarmacs.

Thanks Airsupport.. Care to back that up with any facts?

THEY ARE THE FACTS...... :rolleyes:

How can anyone NOT understand that. :confused:

The people at Virgin HQ in England were in contact with me when I was working in the USA about helping them start up in Australia, however I lost interest when I found out they were to be a LCC with LAMEless tarmacs and NO LAMEs on turnrounds, that was against everything I valued. :(

legacy LAME

12th Aug 2011, 00:36

Lame1 ,too true. In the last 10 odd years I have seen line after line of clueless
Yes men come thru as managers implementing there so called change for the better and guess what? It never worked . I could go on for hrs giving examples of ludicrous decisions that saved pennies at the time but had massive back end costs. I have been involved in managers meeting that made me feel sick at the absolute fantasy getting thrown around and the even worse decisions getting made on the back of incorrect and even missleading information!
I do however take comfort in the fact that when the ref blows the whistle and it is game on, the other team has given us all the ammo to reap havoc.
it is called the PPM. It is the document put together by empire builders trying
To further there own careers. I wonder wether our IR dept has read and moreso digested the contents of that document because it contains the info to prevent any flight leaving on time or at all!
So bring it on I say and thanks to all the incompetent fools who wrote the PPM
I wonder what new low the share price will hit today and to our exec,
Keep up the good work

Romulus

12th Aug 2011, 04:22

Romulus why defend or make a position when you clearly havent a clue what your talking about

When you pass reading comprehension lame1 reread what I wrote and get back to us.

Romulus

12th Aug 2011, 09:52

"I think you may find they're training up a crew to handle rather more of the fleet than the current number. i.e. planning ahead"
The numbers quoted are required to work on this lastest piece "new technology",you show your lack of experience and knowledge in the industry by (a) having a guess (b)suggesting that more manpower than needed is being used to carrry out the work.
Our old manager believed only 24 LAME's were needed .The current manager thinks someone with a CAT A is a better option than a experienced LAME.Id say you would fit in nicely as the third muppet.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

But what is quite clear is that you're a bitter, close minded individual.

As for having a guess, well, I'm assuming on that basis you are 100% fully informed or you are also having a guess. And you are a hypocrite. That's probably it, kind of screams out of you really.

Based on what I do know more manpower than is absolutely needed is being used. Logically that doesn't happen in a cost cutting environment without a reason. It would appear logical that, when a new type is intorduced, you use more labour than is absolutely necessary up front so you have trained, experienced people ready for further aircraft entering service.

Of course, your bitterness won't let you admit the logic of this, you'll have a nice tanty, the knickers will have a further twist or two added and you'll whinge and bitch about how terrible it all is.

But you won't do anything, you'll just be a mouth.

Seriously, if it's that bad then get out. Do something else. Grow up at the very least.

lame1

12th Aug 2011, 10:01

I think you may find they're training up a crew to handle rather more of the fleet than the current number. i.e. planning ahead.
Just a guess...
Above is your previous post in case you cant remember
Romulus,
The numbers quoted are required to work on this lastest piece "new technology",you show your lack of experience and knowledge in the industry by (a) having a guess (b)suggesting that more manpower than needed is being used to carrry out the work at the moment.Of course you can use less manpower but that will decrease the amount of rectification that would be carried out during the port visit which will also effect the customers next experience on the subsequent flight/s.
Our old manager believed only 24 LAME's were needed .The current manager thinks someone with a CAT A is a better option than a experienced LAME.Id say you would fit in nicely as the third muppet. Rule 1 -Dont guess ,Rule 2- Find a industry to work in you actually understand.

Bootstrap1

12th Aug 2011, 10:16

Well the old manager(s) were complete and utter fwits, and the current managers aren't much better.
Look where the old managers are now, playing with over sized train sets.
The current manager will probably join them if they don't show some real progress to move"the business forward".

OzSync

12th Aug 2011, 10:31

How many QF flights per day are currently LAMEless?

TIMA9X

12th Aug 2011, 11:00

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Hkn49pIYH_Y/TkUFHrAbh7I/AAAAAAAABKA/WMI6tEkBuKg/s640/if-its-spare-use-it.jpg

Well, it's Friday again, :)

Longbow25

12th Aug 2011, 21:58

A typically closed minded, egotistical response to a situation in which you find yourself totally out of your depth lame1.

At least you and your similarly minded "friends" will be condembed to the same fate as the dinosaurs.

I'm not saying I agree with the QF view at all but rather that simply saying it's stupid won't fix it.

Romulus

13th Aug 2011, 03:10

The numbers quoted are required to work on this lastest piece "new technology",you show your lack of experience and knowledge in the industry by (a) having a guess (b)suggesting that more manpower than needed is being used to carrry out the work at the moment.Of course you can use less manpower but that will decrease the amount of rectification that would be carried out during the port visit which will also effect the customers next experience on the subsequent flight/s.
Our old manager believed only 24 LAME's were needed .The current manager thinks someone with a CAT A is a better option than a experienced LAME.Id say you would fit in nicely as the third muppet. Rule 1 -Dont guess ,Rule 2- Find a industry to work in you actually understand.

Somersault, Tanty and Pike with a Two and a Half Knicker Twist!

Far better than the predicted tanty and getting your knickers in a twist!

Congrats lame1, you just sciored a perfect 10 from all the judges in the "sad, sad, little man" contest.

Jethro Gibbs

13th Aug 2011, 09:36

Qantas Ground Services - Ground Crew Melbourne Airport Job in Melbourne 3000, Victoria Australia (http://jobview.careerone.com.au/Qantas-Ground-Services-Ground-Crew-Melbourne-Airport-Job-Melbourne-VIC-AU-101629032.aspx)

Advertiseing for every where The End is Nigh no need to wait till 24 it has begun the battle that had not begun is lost.

L Riding hood

13th Aug 2011, 11:56

LAME less tarmac is been put in through the back door at Q-link BNE
They have made most LAMEs there redundant so that the ones that are left can not physically do all the receive and dispatch as well as any defects that may occur and on top of daily ramp inspection, so there are now currently 6 AME scabs and growing
Silly thing is they are paying more money to the scabs than a fully licensed LAME go figure http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

amos2

13th Aug 2011, 12:00

"Silly thing is they are paying more money to the scabs than a fully licensed LAME go figure"...

...if I were you I would be very concerned about that!

ALAEA Fed Sec

13th Aug 2011, 12:03

I would be concerned about it if I had to fly with them.

L Riding hood

13th Aug 2011, 12:38

Amos2 I am concerned that is why I posted as a caution. As a potential back door for big Q to get a LAME less tarmac. Be aware of bulk engineering redundancy to reduce the number so they cant possible cope with the workload and bring outsource labour in. That way the engineers left still retain their function as per the EA and the company gets next to a lame less push backs
This is just a thought I may be wrong and I don’t know the EA for Q other than what I have pick up here but please correct me if I am wrong but didn't they do something similar to the flight attendance not to far back?

airsupport

13th Aug 2011, 21:27

I would be concerned about it if I had to fly with them.

I am concerned. :(

Sounds like Qantas have all the wheels in motion to get around any EBAs or agreements. :(

plasticmerc

14th Aug 2011, 01:50

Maybe it's time that the industry start to look at the big picture?
Start a petition to get aviation off the short list so that the 457 visa's can be shut down for our industry! So iIf QF, 1star want to make people redundent in their respected fields they can't employ foriegners to do our JOBS!
It used to be if a job was made redundent that position couldn't be back filled by someone for a few years, I don't know what the rules are today?
This only counts if the respected company does not create a new entity though which is what QF seem to be doing.
There is a lot of engineers in OZ who are either waiting on a LAME position or can't even break into the OZ airlines, alot of younger people itching to have a shot!
There is no shortage of engineers is what I am trying to say but alot of companies trying to get people to work for crap conditions managers and companies get more money workers getting less.
Engineers are a very important part of the industry it takes many years to get to where we are, many more once licensed.
If you think you can train someone in weeks or months you are dreaming!

Am I wrong or have I been kidding myself all these years?

mightyauster

15th Aug 2011, 00:38

I'll second that petition!
AMSA think it is quite ok to 457 any moron in, instead of investing in training their own local staff. :mad: This is compounded by the introduction to the Part 66 Licence system by CASA. Local staff are expected to pay for their own conversion courses - anywhere from $6000 to $10,000, plus time off from work. :ugh:This cr@p needs to stop!
There is not a lack of local staff, only training investment.

airsupport

15th Aug 2011, 00:48

What on Earth has happened to our once great and safe Industry in Australia. :(

From the lack of training, importing cheap labour, ridiculous reduction in our Aussie Licence down to the European style, and now LAMEless tarmac and preflights. :mad:

This is one BIG mother of a disaster waiting to happen. :(

griffin one

15th Aug 2011, 09:44

While every QF employee waits for 24th August, Isnt it about time some Action be taken.
Lets get real once the board release their grand plans does anyone really think they will change.
not wanting to sound like a defeatest but what decision has been reversed with this current managers?

none

Jethro Gibbs

15th Aug 2011, 10:22

griffin one
ACTION BEFORE ITS TOO LATE HOW TRUE BUT I THINK ITS BEEN LEFT TO LATE 1 MINUTE STOPPAGE AND LEFT HAND ONLY STUFF WAS JUST A FARCE.

buttmonkey1

15th Aug 2011, 10:54

agree, lets get on with it
o/t bans and higher duties bans.
game on.

ALAEA Fed Sec

15th Aug 2011, 11:12

If we wait until the 24th you might find that the whole country is behind us if that mathematician announces what we expect. If we go earlier he will use it as the excuse.

I know it is hard but there is a bank over the way, pull up a seat and watch the river.

Ngineer

15th Aug 2011, 11:23

If we go earlier he will use it as the excuse.

And wouldn't he love to!!:ok:

WTFMate

15th Aug 2011, 11:24

In FED SEC we trust. Long live FED SEC.:ok:

1me

15th Aug 2011, 12:02

I know it is hard but there is a bank over the way, pull up a seat and watch the river. I hope the current is strong, Sensei!

Jethro Gibbs

15th Aug 2011, 12:09

If we wait until the 24th you might find that the whole country is behind us

I think we will find the whole country is behind us for about the 1 minute splash it will get on the news then they will move on look at the people from SPC an Australian Fruit company they are gone or going and everyone else has moved on nothing more will be heard of them.:(

600ft-lb

15th Aug 2011, 12:28

Perhaps Jethro

But the buffoons in head office don't seem to realise that if it's a move to Asia on the cards the only quality left in the red rat, its Australianess, ceases the be the remaining drawcard for people to choose to fly Qantas in the first place.

SQ, EK, EY, MH, CX, TG, they all service OZ, they all have nicer aircraft, they all have better forward connections to more destinations west of Australia then SIN, BKK and LHR.

What's to stop anyone choosing the competition if the single major factor in people's choice to fly QF is gone and its just a poor competitor with tired aircraft except for a few A380s?

Fleet planning = ultimate failure. Blame GD, he set this course.

Jethro Gibbs

15th Aug 2011, 12:37

Fleet planning = ultimate failure. Blame GD, he set this course.

Correct And walked away with a heap of cash we could not jump over.:(

What The

15th Aug 2011, 12:58

I think you could actually go back to Strong and Toomey.

Sydney Buttmonkey

16th Aug 2011, 07:13

One of the biggest complaints from frequent flyers is turning up and finding you aren't on a Qantas aircraft. Now you are guaranteed not to be on one. I can hear the frequent flyers running now.

You think 150 million was a hefty bill last time, this time its personal. And I don't really care what you offer me now AJ cause whilst you are in charge it don't matter. I have nothing to lose now.

500 million dollar profit and the company is in trouble. American economy here we come.

GREEDY CORPORATE MOTHER :mad:.

Anyone know where the French put those guillotines after last time. Oh hang on thats right I can :mad: you over better with my ALAEA/AIPA pen.

LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !!!!!:E:E:E

griffin one

16th Aug 2011, 09:37

35 redundancies in Base
60 redundancies SIO and SDO

when exactly do we start some ACTION ?

ALAEA Fed Sec

16th Aug 2011, 09:58

It won't be long.

Take five

16th Aug 2011, 10:02

Got the M.E.L. pen, very ready to use it.
Defects are appearing everywhere.

Jethro Gibbs

16th Aug 2011, 10:18

Avalon told today no changes.
Many do not believe it the true believers do.

QAN_Shareholder

16th Aug 2011, 10:45

Take five,

Got the M.E.L. pen, very ready to use it.
Defects are appearing everywhere.

Have you ever considered that this lack of professionalism could be part of the reason for the layoffs?

Ngineer

16th Aug 2011, 11:21

35 redundancies in Base
60 redundancies SIO and SDO

Anyone wish to elaborate???

Bumpfoh

16th Aug 2011, 11:26

Got the M.E.L. pen, very ready to use it.
Defects are appearing everywhere.

Have you ever considered that this lack of professionalism could be part of the reason for the layoffs?

No need to up the ante whatsoever.

The old dungers look after themselves for AOG defects, just as two 734's did today.

Having said that two cancelled A380 flights either end of the network just goes to prove that new technology ain't all that is supposed to be!:=

SpannerTwister

16th Aug 2011, 12:57

Have you ever considered that this lack of professionalism could be part of the reason for the layoffs?

If we take it as a given that "Take five" (or ANY other LAME) would **NOT** raise a MEL unless the item was indeed faulty, are you saying that you have an objection to a LAME raising a MEL for a faulty item ?

Do you seriously consider raising a MEL for a faulty item shows, and let me quote you, a "lack of professionalism..." ?

Please answer.

Please state what you believe a LAME should do if he finds something faulty that is covered in the DDG manual.

ST

Jethro Gibbs

17th Aug 2011, 01:38

Seen AJ on lateline last night peddling this crap that LAWYERS in Thailand are tripping over each other to get well paid jobs on JETSTAR selling over priced orange juice and muffins what utter CRAP.:eek:

mcgrath50

17th Aug 2011, 01:48

Press conference on news24 atm featuring Fed Sec (well done sir!), Katter (woops), Adam Bandt, TWU and others! Maybe things are happening to stop this?

Barry Jackson seemed resigned to his fate on the radio yesterday, may as well go down fighting than go down quietly!

QAN_Shareholder

17th Aug 2011, 11:04

ST,

If we take it as a given that "Take five" (or ANY other LAME) would **NOT** raise a MEL unless the item was indeed faulty, are you saying that you have an objection to a LAME raising a MEL for a faulty item ?

Do you seriously consider raising a MEL for a faulty item shows, and let me quote you, a "lack of professionalism..." ?

Please answer.

Please state what you believe a LAME should do if he finds something faulty that is covered in the DDG manual.

ST

The meaning of Take five's post was quite clear, raise defects when you wouldn't have otherwise done so with the objective of disrupting flights. So yes, I do 'seriously consider' this to be a lack of professionalism. With these sorts of tactics you have little hope of getting support from shareholders for your cause.

Ka.Boom

17th Aug 2011, 11:12

Mate you must be over the moon.QF shareprice has lost near 40% value in the last month and you haven't had a dividend since moses wore short pants

Sunfish

17th Aug 2011, 11:19

QAN Shareholder:

The meaning of Take five's post was quite clear, raise defects when you wouldn't have otherwise done so with the objective of disrupting flights. So yes, I do 'seriously consider' this to be a lack of professionalism. With these sorts of tactics you have little hope of getting support from shareholders for your cause.

As you sow, so shall you reap........

Have you ever had your car subjected to a "roadworthy" inspection by the local Police? Do you know that in the absence of anything else, you can always get done for "worn wiper blade rubbers"?

You forget that an aircraft is an assemblage of at least 100,000 parts, and that even a 99.9% reliability rate means that at least Ten parts are broken whenever the aircraft is flying.

Do you really want a LAME to measure the brake pack thickness or tire tread to the nearest thousandth of an inch every time they pull up?

As it is, they put their licenses on the line - and risk criminal prosecution when they sign an aircraft out as serviceable.

Would you like them to certify an aircraft is serviceable illegally?

I'm waiting for your answer....................

unseen

17th Aug 2011, 11:36

If there are so many airworthiness defects, why are LAMEs signing the aircraft out?

What is the point of a LAME pre-flight if they allow 10 airworthiness defects per flight?

Don't be the one who delays an aircraft for no good reason and it ends up in a period of bad weather / windshear/ hail etc, no matter how good the intention.

SpannerTwister

17th Aug 2011, 11:37

And SH..........

Not to mention, and here is a simple question............

Do you want LAMEs to work in accordance with the QEPM at all times ?

As any LAME will tell you, working IAW the QEPM WILL GUARANTEE that each and every flight is delayed, if indeed it takes off at all.

For every single flight a LAME should print out the appropriate check sheets, book a calibrated rule out of the store, ensure that areas (the wheel wells) are sufficiently clean to enable them to check diligently for cracks. Naturally the areas must be cleaned IAW the approved procedures, using approved wipes and cleaning fluids.

For ETOPS flights the LAME would of course enter the GRN of the oils used in the Tech Log, when he could find this information :D

If you know anything about the QF system of maintenance you'll know that the airplanes fly in spite of it and not :mad: because of it :ugh:

Need me to go on ?

So again, Do you advocate that LAMEs should maintain airplanes in accordance with the QF MM ??

ST

SpannerTwister

17th Aug 2011, 11:50

If there are so many airworthiness defects, why are LAMEs signing the aircraft out?

Assuming you are fair dinkum (and not Trolling), there are differences between airworthiness defects and non-airworthiness defects.

Also, and as an example, say a LAMEs is required to check the brake wear, and say the limit is 1/32 inch.

A LAME can eye-ball the pin and immediately put it in one of three categories ...............

1) Under 1/32.....Brake needs changing
2) Well over 1/32....Brake is fine
3) Somewhere around 1/32.......Get a rule and measure it

However, if this check was done strictly in accordance with company procedures it would go something like this every time ..............

1) Log into computer
2) Fire up IE
3) Go to MQF
4) Search for the appropriate check sheet
5) Print out this check sheet
6) Read this check sheet
7) Identify limit as 1/32
8) Go to store
9) Book out calibrated rule
10) Go to aircraft and measure brake
11) Return rule to store
12) Dispose of (now T/X) manual printout

In all seriousness, and if I haven't missed any, the 12 steps above is what the QEPM REQUIRES that the LAME does for each and every check, no matter how small or trivial.

Heaven forbid I suggest that any LAME, after 20 years of service, would in practice use the three-step-eyeball-method to determine the serviceability of a brake, but........... ;)

All we're trying to say is that LAMEs make the airplanes fly in spite of QE procedures, which it seems are designed solely to prevent aircraft flying !!

ST

600ft-lb

17th Aug 2011, 11:56

Avalon told today no changes.
Many do not believe it the true believers do.

Until the remaining 6 744ER's are converted to J/Y, then no more soup for you AVV, purpose served.

Flokkered

17th Aug 2011, 12:10

.
If there are so many airworthiness defects, why are LAMEs signing the aircraft out?

What is the point of a LAME pre-flight if they allow 10 airworthiness defects per flight?

Don't be the one who delays an aircraft for no good reason and it ends up in a period of bad weather / windshear/ hail etc, no matter how good the intention.

What the?
What do you think the MEL is for? Toilet paper?:ugh:

Take five

17th Aug 2011, 12:36

You usually get what you wish for.

Just wait until the "A" licenses arrive and they decide to apply an M.E.L. for a defect.

Which is well within the scope of their license privileges.

Welcome to the new world of Qantasia and 100.66.

A L.A.M.E. is well aware of his responsibilities.

If he gets it wrong it costs $5000 per signature. And his license.

Not something to be taken lightly.

S.T. Was that brake hot or cold, because if it's hot and just landed it will be changed.

If however, it cools down for 20 minutes during the transit it will now be within limits as it contracts and the pin dimension changes.

Funny about limits, isn't it.

It's all in the interpretation.

Quick check just added a 1 hour delay.

Quill Shaft

17th Aug 2011, 13:00

Girls & Guys,

It is 1000 redundancies today retiring 4 aircraft.

If you look at the presentation QF have on the QF intranet about their strategic review, they plan to retire 50 red tail aircraft over the next 5 years.

In other words 1000 redundancies will turn into 5000 redundancies in 5 years as the unions have been arguing.

In the process many Management KPI's and cost cutting bonuses will be achieved.

"Don't, don't, don't believe the hype!!!" You know what I mean

600ft-lb

17th Aug 2011, 13:46

Don't be under any illusions, this isn't the beginning of the reduction in Qantas staff numbers, this graph is compiled with data from their annual reports.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3425/graph1ww.jpg
Just need to project it further forward as the trend is well and truly set in motion. Basically, every Qantas member that leaves is being replaced by a Jetstar member on lesser conditions. Every airframe that isn't bought for Qantas is bought for a subsidiary.

It's been on average 1000 per year since 2005 leaving the Qantas mainline ranks, plus another 1000 in a few months, projected forward with the impeding retirement of the 767s and 734s and 744s with the addition on 12 738 and a handful of a380s, the future can easily be predicted.

ACT Crusader

17th Aug 2011, 22:50

From Ben Schneiders

QANTAS is to be hit with industrial action by its engineers next week while the airline has accused unions of trashing its brand and making misleading claims about its new strategy.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association is set to notify Qantas as early as today of industrial action that is expected to start next Thursday.
The engineers can badly affect the airline's operations and in 2008 their strikes cost Qantas $130 million. Association members have already endorsed industrial action and the union has to give at least three days' notice before it can start lawful action.

Federal secretary Steve Purvinas yesterday accused Qantas of a ''big fat lie'' when it forecast its international business would lose $200 million this financial year. He said the loss had been achieved by shifting profits to other parts of its business.

A Qantas spokesman dismissed the claims as ''laughable'', saying the results were audited and it had a legal obligation to provide accurate information. Qantas is expected to report an overall before-tax profit of $500 million to $550 million next week.

The airline also dismissed union claims that up to 5000 jobs could go at Qantas.

Chief executive Alan Joyce said Qantas was trying to ensure any job losses would be through voluntary redundancies.

''There's no saving in staff cost that Qantas is going to obtain out of this because it is new business ventures,'' Mr Joyce said.

''They're continuing to make false accusations about Qantas offshoring, which is not true, about safety concerns which are not true, and they continue to make false accusations across the board.''

Qantas has argued that it needed drastic action to save its international business and the company's five-year plan includes establishing two Asian airlines, revising routes and its fleet while developing more extensive alliances with other airlines.

Transport Workers Union national secretary Tony Sheldon said he was ''confident'' international aviation unions would take action against Qantas.
He said a recent international union alliance had ''sworn their commitment to make sure that decent paying jobs are maintained in any country and are simply not offshored from one country to undercut another''.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said he was working with unions to examine the Qantas Sale Act, saying it should be strengthened to ensure something like this never happened again. ''Alan Joyce could well go down as the Sol Trujillo of Qantas,'' Senator Xenophon said.

Greens MP Adam Bandt said he remained unconvinced about Qantas's plans after meeting Mr Joyce. ''While Qantas continues to claim its shift to Asia is about expansion and not about offshoring jobs, it is clear that competitive pressures will affect wages and conditions in Australia,'' he said.
''Qantas's new Asia airline will pay lower wages and will fly into and out of Australia.''

Labor backbencher Glenn Sterle called the decision ''absolutely disgraceful'' and urged Australians to reject the plan.

''It is a well-known fact that for every 100 aviation jobs there are another 600 jobs out there in tourism, hospitality and the like,'' he said. ''This is frightening. We haven't seen anything as frightening as this since the Ansett collapse.''

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, a former ACTU secretary, said he was concerned, but when a company was losing money in part of its business it was ''clearly going to have to address those losses''.

Read more: Qantas engineers expected to strike (http://www.theage.com.au/national/qantas-engineers-expected-to-strike-20110817-1iy9f.html#ixzz1VKSDNjzG)

The most interesting thing from yesterday's press conference at Parl House was Glenn Sterle's animated comments. Up until now the senior front benchers from Labor have tried to play this with "a straight bat". Even Combet has taken the commercial line....

ALAEA Fed Sec

18th Aug 2011, 03:44

Notice to our members just out.

The ALAEA Enterprise Agreement negotiation team met with Qantas this morning to discuss further our next wage Agreement. The ALAEA opened requesting answers to the 61 questions regarding the alleged losses on the International arm of the business. Qantas would not answer the questions and instead decided it best if we firstly talk about the announcement by the airline to run down the backbone of the Qantas Group by reducing Qantas services in favour of new entities.

A breakdown of the redundancies was explained with the following impact on Engineering. Qantas advised us that the changes take effect from April 2012 and may not all necessarily be voluntary.

20-30 in Base Maintenance Sydney due to the retirement of 4 x 747-400 aircraft.

128 LAMEs across the country due to the commencement of maintenance on demand.

40 transfers in Sydney to Base maintenance due to maintenance on demand.

Qantas were unclear on how 40 Domestic and International LAMEs would be transferred to Base considering redundancies were also occurring there. From today’s meeting we were left under the impression that 188-198 LAMEs will be made redundant in total.

The ALAEA then asked Gavin Harris how long he had known about the additional redundancies that had not been signalled through the course of EA meetings and he assured us that the first he knew about the changes to Base Maintenance was last Friday. On that basis we advised Qantas that we have been meeting with the wrong people regarding our next Agreement, particularly the job security clauses. We requested that people who do know what the plans of the company are attend the meeting including Alan Joyce. Qantas advised us that Alan Joyce was unavailable.

The ALAEA advised management that we thought it a non-productive exercise continuing without Alan or persons who are aware of what the company have planned over the life of the Agreement in attendance. Please prepare for notifications of Protected Industrial Actions over the coming days.

STEVE PURVINAS
Federal Secretary

airsupport

18th Aug 2011, 05:33

Good luck with it all Steve............. :ok:

33 Disengage

18th Aug 2011, 06:01

Qantas have NOT been negotiating in good faith for almost a year. It's time we took some action to attempt to get QF management to take the negotiations seriously.

An Australia wide 2 day stop work for the 24/25 August might work! Wonder if AJ is going to be available on those days?

How about it Steve?

The Green Goblin

18th Aug 2011, 06:12

Or a complete stop until Alan Joyce comes to the table and negotiates in good faith.

I'm sure the pilots will join in too.

We all have our fingers crossed for you and you have our support.

We need to have a win here else our children will never get the chance to work for Qantas.

We need the unions/staff to pass a motion of no confidence in the CEO and board and ask for their resignation.

A two tier board needs to be set up, with any major strategic direction needing to be passed by the second board. This should be made up of stakeholders voted in by their peers and represent the various facets of the Qantas business.

It's time to take the power back and show these imports that we won't lay down and take it. This is our national airline and the people own the brand
and what it represents, not a leprechaun from Ireland with no emotional attachment to what the brand represents and what it means to Australia.

Qantas is not a spreadsheet with black and red, it's a living breathing entity and the people of Australia built it with their blood sweat and tears.

Go stick it to them.

Condition 1

18th Aug 2011, 06:22

Hear hear!

Jethro Gibbs

18th Aug 2011, 06:26

And today ALG has a new advert advertiseing for staff for Brisbane.WTF is going on.

The Green Goblin

18th Aug 2011, 06:55

When you walk off, I suggest playing twisted sisters "we ain't gonna take it" through the UHFs :ok:

Sums it up pretty well :ok:

Ngineer

18th Aug 2011, 08:10

The jungle drums are beating!!!!

33 Disengage

18th Aug 2011, 10:19

Can't be sacked if it's approved PIA action by Fair Work Australia.

What happened last century is in the past, get over it, your life is being wasted.

Clipped

18th Aug 2011, 10:55

An Australia wide 2 day stop work for the 24/25 August

No. Do not give them the means to proportionally attack you.

We are far more 'effective' on-the-job.

Poison pen is ready. Mightier than thy sword.

Jethro Gibbs

18th Aug 2011, 12:51

AJ Had advice from this company WENO F HALL & Co

Jet-A-One

18th Aug 2011, 17:22

Walking off the job is NOT the right tactic!

Jet-A-One

18th Aug 2011, 18:29

Neither is walking out of negotiation meetings...

ALAEA Fed Sec

18th Aug 2011, 20:38

Walking off the job is NOT the right tactic!

Notice will be sent through today that will include stoppages Mon-Fri at various ports across the country. They will be at convenient times so those staff coming off shift can extend to cover the stoppages.

Neither is walking out of negotiation meetings...

No point sitting in a room with a bunch of lower level managers who cannot make decisions and do not know what the future holds for the company. It is a deliberate attempt to keep us locked in rooms whilst they wine and dine with Politicians and crap on us in the media.

SpannerTwister

19th Aug 2011, 00:12

Steve..

In your notice you say..... A breakdown of the redundancies was explained with the following impact on Engineering. Qantas advised us that the changes take effect from April 2012 and may not all necessarily be voluntarySo what's CN's intention, that LAMEs should spend between now and next April wondering if they're going to be one of the ones who..... may not all necessarily be voluntaryDoes he expect that the LAMEs will put their life on hold for nine months while we find out who's getting the boot and who stays ?

Great :mad: way to boost moral and get the staff engaged :ugh: :mad: :ugh:

ST

(Hey, worked so well for BNE didn't it :mad: )

lame1

19th Aug 2011, 00:21

CN is the same guy that shutdown AirNZ.Hes at QF to do a job then to leave with a great wad of cash.Dont believe a word he says.Talk to our Air NZ mates.Memories run long.

mahatmacoat

19th Aug 2011, 00:33

Looks like it's game on. Stoppages until xmas.

Want to learn more about cfds? We can help. Learn More

QANTAS faces a prolonged period of rolling industrial action with the airline’s engineers to tell the airline today it will undertake a ‘‘program’’ of one hour strikes that will stretch until mid December.
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas said the union had been negotiating with Qantas for nearly a year over ‘‘job security’’ but the airline’s announcement of a major restructure with 1000 jobs to be shed had ended that ‘‘Any progress that had been made has now been eliminated with Qantas announcing its intention to shrink Qantas in favour of new companies based in Asia.”
As foreshadowed by Fairfax Media the action by the engineers will start next Thursday and it will target Qantas facilities in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide on different days. The one hour strikes will occur when night shift workers start their shifts.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The engineers can badly affect the airline’s operations and in 2008 their strikes cost Qantas $130 million. Association members have already endorsed industrial action.
Mr Purvinas again questioned whether the international business of Qantas was losing money saying load factors were higher ‘‘than they ever have been’’ while fuel is 25 per cent cheaper than in 2008, which he said was their most profitable year.
‘‘The future of the airline should not be left in the hands of those who concocted this plan.”
Qantas has forecast its international business would lose $200 million this financial year and the airline has dismissed as ‘‘laughable’’ claims this was in any way overstated. A spokesman has said previously its results were audited and it had a legal obligation to provide accurate information.
Mr Purvinas said the union would also offer to co-ordinate its members to undertake overtime to replace the striking workers — an offer Qantas is almost certain to reject.
A call has been placed with Qantas for comment.

Read more: Qantas strikes 'to stretch until December' (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-strikes-to-stretch-until-december-20110819-1j10t.html#ixzz1VQkAGpLX)