Rumour: Sunstate Engineers suspended over aircraft sabotage?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Steve, I dont understand what's going on here, why is the union supporting guys that want to leave the industry and thereby the union, what goes on here???


Apart from a couple who are nearing retirement age, the rest have jobs in the industry to go to or are undertaking their own A330 courses with their redundancy money.

[Arnold E]

Apart from a couple who are nearing retirement age, the rest have jobs in the industry to go toSteve, surely we support people where they work or we dont. Steve I am trying to understand what is going on here. I want to support our brothers in the industry, but I am less inclined to support those that want to get out. Steve, I know I am a dinosour, but I want to support our brothers that want to be in the industry, I'm not so sure about the rest.
We must also support fully our pilot brother who has been suspended for refusing overtime

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The union doesn't negotiate to help people get out of the industry. People however get older and eventually retire, that's just the way it is. Two of the 11 who left Sunstate I understand are going to retire, they would have anyway, I can't see a problem with that. If you know a fountain of youth out there, let me know, we can put it on our claim list.

[Arnold E]

If you know a fountain of youth out there, let me know, we can put it on our claim list.
Not worth commenting on

[Sunfish]

600 ft-lb:

The engineers were obviously considered not good otherwise they wouldn't of been treated like they were scum.

No! No! No! 600ft-lb, you don't understand the mindset of these managers! The actual ability of the engineers is irrelevant to know nothing managers! What the managers want is abject subservience - compliance, even when the engineer knows that the manager is wrong.

This is the crux of the entire Qantas problem! All staff are regarded as replaceable automatons in that no one is better than any other one, and the automatons don't have to be too bright either, just compliant and follow orders!

[GLBS]

18 months of crap.:ouch: Fines delivered late at night, nothing like a good night sleep.:rolleyes: Waiting and waiting for outcome , workplace :ugh:, waiting, waiting waiting. Mortgage going backwards, scabs being paid more. Waiting, waiting and yes more waiting.:ugh:Short shifts ,more days spent in this enviroment:ugh: Took redundancy, wait no longer.

[600ft-lb]

Sounds familiar Sunfish

What the managers want is abject subservience - compliance, even when the engineer knows that the manager is wrong.Philip Zimbardo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo#Prison_study)

The study shows that before the volunteer prisoners started showing signs of distress, they did not take the guards and their authority seriously. The prisoners mocked the guards, trying to regain their individuality. This, however, was short-lived. The prisoners soon realized that the attitude of the guards was very serious and that they demanded obedience. This began a long string of confrontational quarrels between the guards and prisoners. The guards used physical punishment and exercises, such as pushups, in order to show their authority to the prisoners.
In the morning of only the second day, a rebellion broke out among the volunteer prisoners. They ripped off their uniforms and locked themselves in their cells by pushing their beds up against the door. In response to this, the guards became very angry and called for backup assistance to the situation. This surprised Zimbardo as well as the rest of the psychologists because they had not thought it would be taken this far. Guards who were not on duty were called in and the guards who were assigned to only the night shift stayed with the guards who came in all the way through their shift the next morning. The tactic the guards came up with was to fight back in order to discipline the unruly prisoners and make them obey. In response to the prisoners barricading themselves in their cells, the guards used fire extinguishers on them to get them away from the entrances.
Once the guards were able to get into the cells, they stripped the inmates naked, tore apart the beds and the cell, and put the prisoners who had started the rebellion in solitary confinement. As all nine guards could not be on duty at once, they began rewarding the prisoners for good behavior. The prisoners who had not been involved in starting the riot were allowed to lie in their beds, wash themselves and brush their teeth and eat while those who had started the riot were not allowed to. The guards continued to use tormenting tactics to break up the prisoners relations with each other to avoid further organized resistance. In the case with one prisoner, who was a smoker, the guards were able to control his behavior because they decided when and if he was allowed to smoke.
Quite a few parallels exist in todays across the board 'Buggery Campaign' to say the least. Its the effects of hierarchy on the individuals only following orders, being put in the position to do that job, only following orders and not to be held responsible at the end of the day.

If you've got some time to kill its an interesting watch.
b_huJo9FOkI

[Arnold E]

What did the ALAEA win here ? anything ? Jethro, to be honest, I have to ask the same question.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
Care to comment Steve? What has been accomplished? I dont know, but am willing to listen either here or pm. \
Care to respond Steve??

[Arnold E]

Yeah rereading you have, in a roundabout way, I am not trying to be obtuse, I want to support you guys, if you want me to stand on a picket line I will. Please believe I am with you. I will support you Steve, if I understand what you are doing. Maybe it doesn't matter what us old guys think.

[Bigdog01]

Being one of the redundants, I personally would have preferred to continue working.
However the environment I would have been working in was not going to be ideal, so basically I took the money offered and did a runner. Have I finished work - YES FOR Qantas but NO for other employers.
I had no plans to retire at this age, this just created another scenario for me. QLink could have been a great place to work - if it wasn't for the managers always trying to line the pockets with bonus's and continually trying to prove how cheap it can be done.
As has been pointed out in other posts - the QLink managers had no respect for the guys on the floor who faced daily issues which could have been prevented with a little for thought from those in charge.
As for the who won part of this thread - yet to be decided.
The engineer's have by sticking to their principles made themselves the scape goats for the manager's short comings at this stage in proceedings. Eventually the wheels will fall off and the spotlight will focus on the real issue - incompetent managers. However in true management form those who created the issues will probably have moved on to better things leaving the newbie to clean up the mess.

[IAW]

Bigdog, as a fellow LAME I applaud you and your ilk for sticking it out so long in such a toxic environment. Unfortunately, when "the wheels fall off" don't be surprised if the managers still come out smelling like roses while blaming those at the coalface for not working hard enough or some such rubbish.

Good luck with your new employer :ok:

[WheelsandBrakes]

To all the Sunnie guys who are leaving - good luck with whatever you do now! Thank you for sticking to your guns and principles along the way. :D It must have been very difficult at times.

To those who have decided to stay - good luck to you also! I hope your working environment becomes less toxic in the very near future.

[Bigdog01]

Personally I feel for the guys remaining - where else in this wide brown land would you have 6 LAME's plus 3 or 4 AME's handle up to 80 to 90 movements a day.
Coverage from 0515 to 2400 - still operating an 8 hour shift pattern.

Damn these planes must be good - self healing, forbidden to break down or have defects until scheduled for maintenance. Bring out the magic wand or holy water - get bigger maint logs to hold the deferred items.

Still working on a 2 year overdue EA - probably still no movement from the company regarding the new EBA. Working harder, less support and all being done for a pittance.

[blackbook]

How is the court case going?

[Arnold E]

Can I ask, what was the wash up here??
Many people, including myself donated funds for the fight here, but what actually happened. Can someone please give a summery of what happened, or indeed, is it still going on??

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Still going on. Should end with Alan's departure.

[Arnold E]

Should end with Alan's departureAs you know,I am not of Q, but I certainly hope that this happens soon, otherwise the whole industry will be affected

What action is ongoing??

[unionist1974]

"Should end with alans departure " what does that mean Fed Sec , have you given up? thrown the towel in eh!

[buttmonkey1]

hope the alaea gets the rails run in court today,
the media reports once again show qf management
buffoonery for the world to see.
Six men take Qantas to court after being sacked over misconduct claims by airline | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/six-men-take-qantas-to-court-after-being-sacked-over-misconduct-claims-by-airline/story-e6frfkur-1226149069370)

[ACT Crusader]

Qantas staff stood down for voicing safety concerns: court (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/qantas-staff-stood-down-for-voicing-safety-concerns-court-20110928-1kwlg.html)

There were hearings in the Fed court yesterday and today, and further hearings scheduled all of next week.

[B.U.F.F.]

It would seem that safety and responsibility is allowed to take a back seat when so called industrial action comes into force. These guys were being ignored whilst trying to gain better pay and conditions. From the outside looking in it would appear that they discovered an issue, reported the issue were ignored by management as they thought it was part of the action. They the engineers felt strongly enough that the doors although meeting the requirements still lacked the ability to stop intruders from getting into the cockpit in flight ( which is the reason why they were installed).

It is every engineers legal and moral responsibility to report defects in any system on an aircraft which does not comply with many and various regulations. In this case a security door designed to prevent entry into the cockpit which proved incapable of doing this. I am sure the door itself would pass the requirements but the installation needs to match these requirements. Sometimes as we all know modifications don't always work and a requirement to improve/redesign things after the fact to enable compliance with the intention of the modification is required.

Where are they at regarding their EA? I guess they are still waiting as Q managers seem to be fighting all pay rises with all sectors whilst receiving substantial increases themselves.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Still battling for an EA outcome. These blokes had agreed on the payrise and terms except a training bond that was to apply to about 2 members. That was 18 months ago.

Qantas have spent 1 million dollars fighting our 6 members on this case alone. Trial continues all next week, if you want to support our guys on the witness stand they appear tomorrow at Fed Court in Bne. PM me for details if req.

They the engineers felt strongly enough that the doors although meeting the requirements


The doors didn't even meet the requirements. That will come out this week.

[B.U.F.F.]

This has gone quiet, have the issues been resolved or have the few here been swamped by the masses.
They the company have decreased the full time staff down to just a few -10 I believe ?
Supplemented the ranks with contractors for the AME positions and contract LAME's as required.
Having been out and about with my ears open, I believe senior staff member scouting around looking for license coverage on a casual basis - why ?
The exodus of full time staff is continuing - so how many are left?
Court case - result soon/maybe and how much coverage will this get ?
From the antics everybody has seen in the last month or so, it is obvious these guys were the practice for the rest.:sad:
So where does this leave the regionals in QLD ( the actual birthplace of the Q).

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just waiting for the court decision to be handed down.

[Bigdog01]

Labour hire group looking to employ contract LAME's in brissy to replace those that left or were punted.
Has the EA been sorted for those that remain ?
Long term contracts on offer and for considerably more $ than those still employed there. Courses on offer too - unlike in the recent past.
Maybe the grand scheme did not work as well as they hoped - idiots :ugh:

[Kiwiconehead]

Maybe the grand scheme did not work as well as they hoped - idiots

None of their grand schemes have worked.

Reducing Melbourne base to 4 Lames, that lasted 3 months before they hired 2 more LAMEs

Opening the Canberra base - still contractors there too as all us guys who were "surplus" in Melbourne took the money rather than move to Canberra.

It's about time the Qantaslink management worked out that they aren't smart enough to have cunning plans.

[Arnold E]

Labour hire group looking to employ contract LAME's in brissyWhich labour hire group would that be then?

[Jethro Gibbs]

ALG ? BERMIL ?

[Arnold E]

ALG ? BERMIL ? Cant see that it is either of them,
Labour hire group looking to employ contract LAME's in brissy to replace those that left or were punted.
Is the above the facts or just wild speculation?:ugh:

[Arnold E]

Whats the equivalent of Sunnies in Perth??

[Kiwiconehead]

Whats the equivalent of Sunnies in Perth??

Network are looking after the Q400s over there

[Arnold E]

Does Network run any Dash 8's ?? looks like on the net that they are F100's??

[Engineer_aus]

Simple Casa reg search reveals F100's and EMB 120's are ops by Network. Maybe Network turbine Solutions provide maintenance to the Q400's?

[The Big E]

Greetings Splitpin. After 52 years in the industry (this month), I still find
it abhorrent that these flunky type of puppet management personnel are still expousing and pedalling this verbal diahorrea.:= They are obviously not competent and real AMEL holder material, and probably never really made it at the Certification coal face either.:suspect: Please check your PM. Regards Big E.:ok:

[The Big E]

Greetings Bigdog01. Funny how us full bottles know that this requirement has been in the Ground Handling procedures for decades. It was in there when I got a B707 AMEL Rating in the 70s. Best practice then, and still best practice now. The main problem with 'johnny come lately' half baked boys in a man's world is that they don't know what they don't know. Senior LAMEs know that there are no new tricks, it is just that some of the tricks are so old that they appear new to these inexperienced fools who are imposters and masquerading as 'real' engineers - something their present dismal performance says that they will never be. Regards Big E.

[The Big E]

Greetings Isamu. Seems like it is well overdue for Regulatory authority people to be made aware of this guys duty time and the Part 145 compliance of those who are employing him. Sounds like he must be a good customer of pen manufacturers for all the pen whipping of Tech Logs and worksheets etc.:E Keep up the surveillance and always have the camera handy.:ok: Regards Big E.

[Bigdog01]

Sigma are the go to point.
AME's - $35.50/hr
Mech LAME - $59.00/hr
Avionic LAME - $68.50/hr
Q400 courses on offer.
Also require maint supervisors - due to current ones resigning due frustration, not being listened too. So what is new, they have never listened to the guys trying to get the work done - obviously the wrong people, need to be -"YES " men !!!!!!:yuk:

The hourly rate could be doubled and it would still not be enough !!!!
Also looking for Canberra participants - same deal.
Still no word on outcome for the EA for those few remaining full time ? Now 2 1/2 years since expiry.

[Arnold E]

Also looking for Canberra participants - same deal

Perth too I believe.

[B.U.F.F.]

Arnold,
Not sure about Network ( another wholly owned subsidiary now) but BNE -Canb looking for QLink and Toll for the ATR's.

[A65T]

Qlink has now decided that they will increase the pay for Bne Engineers by 9-3% (equivalent to 3+3+3) without settling the EA. Nothing to do with not being able to attract any LAME's to Bne on lower than GA pay. EA to be sorted once Mainline has been passed thru FWA. Only 6 months before Syd EA runs out.

[Arnold E]

Nothing to do with not being able to attract any LAME's to Bne on lower than GA pay.

Tell me where GA LAMES can get $68.50 / Hr, I'm in. I dont know what planet you live on but I would suggest that if you are getting that kind of money, you are doing ok

[baron_beeza]

Myself and others have been paid more than that while contracting on GA aircraft. Not in a location like Brisbane or other main centre admittedly.

Those rates seem to be okay for Brisbane... well at least to me.

[A65T]

The base rate for LAME Mech at the moment is $31.18 for Sunstate , just a bit lower than contractors

[Arnold E]

Mech LAME - $59.00/hr

Fair bit lower by the look of it.

[Bigdog01]

To all those considering this option - good luck.
$59.00/hr super inc for 2 GRP 20's not that good.
Also shift work inc w/ends.
What sort of bond for courses ? can't have you trained then disappear for more $ now can we.

Sorry still no attraction to go back - enjoying other options less money but greater satisfaction. Being appreciated for my skills and thanked for doing a good job or doing that bit extra.:ok:
To all who are still there - Happy New Year and the best to your families.

[Cactusjack]

Sunnies remains a basket case. The only management ever hired are management who have been taught by the school of Joyce.
The place has been let go to a deplorable state.
Management hell bent in crucifying engineers, underpaid pilots, experienced frontliners being pushed out the door, contractors that aren't as efficient and the list goes on. Bullying, harassment, 'the paddle pop 6' and how many stick shake incidents in the past 18 months now, a dozen or more? No just culture, a poor reporting culture, fatigue etc etc etc...

[B.U.F.F.]

Heard rumour around the brissy base - QLink/Network trying to poach F100 LAME's from Alliance due to expansion. Shafting the people who supplied backup for their routes. Good work guys might as well try shafting everyone, eventually no one left to push around and your job is done.

[Cactusjack]

Maybe Sunnies will hire direct entry Indian engineers on $3.76 p/h?
That would certainly fit in well within the theme of the QF Group. Plus their tool kits would come standard with items such as paddle pop sticks!

[Arnold E]

I see the employment ads for those jobs has been pulled, does that mean they now have enough new people to cover the work??

[Bigdog01]

Why pay $3.75/hr, when they could do it via Mumbai call centre for $2.00 /hr.

Hello Sir, this is Sam from Sydney what seems to be the problem - the plane is broken, yes. Ok please depower then power back up - has the problem gone away, no. Ok, I will now pass you on to our technical services - Hello this is Brian from Brisbane please tell me the problem - Ok your plane is broken, please depower then power back up - is the problem still there, yes. Ok please hold for engineering services. Hello Mike from Melbourne here, what seems to be the problem, your plane is broken, OK depower then power back up, do you still have a problem yes. Ok we will have to send someone out please hold while we make a booking with a contractor firm to get some real people to you. In the mean time please tell your passengers we have tried everything to get you going and as a last resort we are trying to get some real people to fix it which unfortunately takes time. Have a good day Sir.

[b55]

BigDog1
Funny! And the short form of this happened to me just the other day.
First flight of the day Bris, caution light wouldn't go away, tried de-powering too, engineer I'd never seen before, first thing he said to me was "de-power" it. Funny thing it didn't work then either. Aircraft swap worked. Thank god for spare aircraft.

[Isamu Pahoa]

Lets get this straight.. $31hr for a dual cat Lame on 2 group 20 aircraft.
It is double that for contracting with a lower group Airframe licence :confused:. Trust me I know.

The Sunstate (former) Lames are also arguably the most experienced Dash 8 Lames in OZ. Most certainly so for the Q400 as they were the launch Aus customer. They did a great job keeping the aircraft serviceable while management sat on there wallets witholding the correct or suitable tooling to do the job safely and efficiently. Then when it came to a tricky EBA the managers could not control the situation.
Whilst there is no doubt the most of the Lames who have left sunnies are now being paid more for less work and better working hrs then before, it is not money that will keep experienced Lames from working at sunnies long term.....it is the managers......until that is changed, it will remain as stated...a basket case:sad:

[Bigdog01]

Has this thread gone the way of the engineer's they once had.
Seems there were some outstanding issues, have these to been resolved with the coming of the almighty contractors.
Any news of the court case or has that too been put in the "TOO HARD" basket.
I hear through the grapevine the incompetants are now trying to build back up to pre - dispute numbers. But it will all be different now as those rascally engineers we used to have are all gone bye bye and no matter how desperate we are we will never have them back because they know too much ! :E

the **** floats high on thick muddy water.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Still waiting on the outcome of the Fed Court case. Has been about 4 months.

A stack of complaints about certain illegitimate maintenance practices went in to CASA this week. They may be able to brush aside an occasional complaint here or there but lets see how they handle a dozen at once.

Freedom of Information regarding the Qantaslink Ops also submitted last week.

[unionist1974]

Fed Sec , Have a good holiday did you?

[L Riding hood]

Rumour has it that Q stink have employed 8 LAME contractors with multiple AME’s to a total of 26 with current employees, I thought that once a company made redundancies that they couldn’t reinstate other employees or contractors to replace those positions for a minimum of 12 months, so once again Qantas showing total disregard for Australian law!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif Not that FWA give a crap!:yuk:

[Jethro Gibbs]

Qantas showing total disregard for Australian law!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif
Not that FWA give a crap!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

And the ALAEA :ok:

[MR WOBBLES]

jethro

Have you found the continental shelf yet .

[Bigdog01]

I hear Sunnies being evicted from H2 but are relocating to where Strategic/Air Aus was leasing. No wonder they are looking for people - ramp maintenance back up.
We all knew they couldn't survive shifting aircraft empty for checks out of Brissy.
For crying out load Brissy is a major hub with lots of o/nighting aircraft and not being able to carry out maint was just a joke.
Still a **** place to work, no improvement and still haven't resolved a single issue.

[Kiwiconehead]

I thought that once a company made redundancies that they couldn’t reinstate other employees or contractors to replace those positions for a minimum of 12 months

They made 4 of us Melbourne engineers redundant in Jun 2009 and hired 2 guys in Feb 2010, although the last one actually finished work late October 2009.

At the time i wrote a letter to Kumar explaining that the base couldn't function with less than 6 LAMEs, as had been proven in about 2002 when they went down to 4 LAMEs.

Of course Qantas Link management know best - which explains why they can only staff Canberra with contractors, Sydney are very short (emails form the boos pleading if staff know anyone who wants to work in Sydney) and Brisbane complete basket case as has been detailed in this thread.

[Hugh Mungous]

G'day Steve, any news or updates on the hearing re the Sunstate blokes? Cheers.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just waiting for the courts to hand donw the result. Has been 6 months now.

[Isamu Pahoa]

For those poor guys who are left behind working not just for Sunstate, but any of the Craplink bases. Take a good look at the survey conducted by Steve P./ALAEA. Simply if you are good at your job and not just good at sucking up, there are other companies worth working for. You may even start to enjoy your job again. :ok:

Six months to try to justify Qantas's disregard for any of its work force.

[tarmacrat]

Hi all, new to the thread and the site.
Any news?
Heard CASA was looking in to Sunnies?
Anys news on the court case?
Mate who work there move on, with a lot of others.

[gobbledock]

Tarmacrat, I heard a rumor that 'somebody' received a 'show cause' last friday at 1655. Obviously I cant say who it was.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

ALAEA has an active freedom of information request sitting with CASA on Sunstate. We may need to expand it to rope in the latest show cause.

Still waiting for the Federal Court decision. No idea when it will be handed down.

[tarmacrat]

Hi gobbledock, Thanks for the up date. I only known one or two of the managers at sunnies by name only, one from up the east coast of QLD. From 15 to 20 years ago. He had a funny high pitch voice.

Also Qantas person told that the hangar in Brisbane was closing down for a refit for 12 months? Is this the hangar which sunnies use?

[tarmacrat]

Was hoping to hear how the engineers at sunnies are going, on there EBA and the pay docking, now my mate out of the place. Or have they been forgotten by all, ALAEA, Qantas and the thread.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

If you scroll up a little, you will see that they have not been forgotten by the ALAEA....... Nice try.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

ALAEA never forgets its members who are making a stand for something that is right. I went up there two weeks ago and had lunch and a meeting with the members concerned. I spoke to their Rep earlier tonight.

[tarmacrat]

I have just heard from a mate in Cairns, that from CASA looking in to Sunnies, that now Narendra Kumar GM, Paul Lidbury Operations manager, have been pushed out of the Business and David Delahay Line Maint. manager, pushed to the side.

Is this a good thing?

Who going to take David Delahay position?

[Kiwiconehead]

Is this a good thing?

Yes, a few more need punting as well but those 3 have done most of the damage.

[blackhander]

Nerendra Kumar now Qantas CFO

[Isamu Pahoa]

tarmacrat
Anyone with a pulse could do the job better than DD and also PL. That pair should pay for there lies, deceit and damage they have caused and I am sure they will not be missed.

I wish those remaining all the best and hope that the new managment provide some support which has been severley lacking in the past. :ok:

[The Hooker]

A little bird has passed news that they are still showing the door to the good guys. Though only a contractor he tried to resolve some of the problems and got shown the door for it.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The entire Qantas Group are a disgrace.

They promote idiots and get rid of anyone who wants to do things properly. They simply do not want people finding things wrong with aircraft when they inspect them. In their eyes the best LAMEs are the ones who just pen things off without looking.

This is not Qantas, or not what it was when it was a great airline.

[gobbledock]

The entire Qantas Group are a disgrace.
They promote idiots and get rid of anyone who wants to do things properly. They simply do not want people finding things wrong with aircraft when they inspect them. In their eyes the best LAMEs are the ones who just pen things off without looking. This is not Qantas, or not what it was when it was a great airline.
Agreed!! What we are seeing is the grand finale of what Darth commenced around 2003. The geniuses have spent years cutting costs in the wrong area's, destroying morale, making horrendous strategic decisions, wilfully and destructively pushing experienced and competent people out the door and incompetently destroying a reputable brand. Congratulations to all the academic parasites at the upper echelon for making yourselves a laughing stock. Your legacy as you eventually exit the back door will not be a legacy of competence, brilliance, skill or vision. Your legacy will be for taking a strong, reputable, solid brand which was well oiled and highly polished and turning it into nothing more than a skid mark.... Well done d:mad:s.

[tarmacrat]

Any word on who had to show cause at sunnies?

How long has it been since the court case finish?

Who has taken David Delahay position?

[gobbledock]

Any word on who had to show cause at sunnies?
All will leak out in good time....Those who know about this issue can't comment publicly about this matter for the time being. The Gulag are watching this thread very closely, so for the moment things are 'safety first'!

[Isamu Pahoa]

DD position
I would asume SH would be in the job at least for the interim and KP gets to step up some more (thanks Pappy).

Show cause!! Surely now SH is in the big job he will sort out all these guys cutting corners and dragging down what should be a vibrant energetic workplace. The right guy for that job :}

[The Hooker]

I have heard a certain Mr Hill has stepped into the breach, though it seems like the frying pan and fire come to mind. http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies2/eusa_wall.gif

[tarmacrat]

Who this Mr Hill?

Is this the same person skytrans were look at some time back?

[Donkey_Punch]

I am not a new poster on here. Had to go 'under cover' to avoid the QF lawyers. I will have more to say about this matter, particularly the 'show cause' once the MODS give me room to move and my posts are cleared.
I won't post too much detail but enough to fill you all in with what is taking place, it is a disgrace..........................

[The Big E]

Greetings GD.

Please send me a PM. I am willing to maintain the "Gray List" of these unscrupulous pen people who are an utter disgrace to the MROs who employ them. The vast majority of highly skilled, knowledgeable, and
professional LAMEs :ok:have no place on their horizon for the activities of these dumbass characters to be superimposed on their well meaning and their well being. Safety is the name of the game, and these gross under performers have no real grasp or understanding of its "true meaning" :confused:. They obviously fall well below the 'Fit and Proper Person' criteria, and this should be pursued by Regulatory authorities.

Regards, Big E.

[Donkey_Punch]

So the game continues under the red tailed banner!

Why hasn't the 'SHOW CAUSE' notice they received been aired publicly?

They did receive a SHOW CAUSE.

Why is the Group CEO still CEO when it is obvious his 'Group Airline' is falling apart at the seams? A SHOW CAUSE for Christ sake.

[L Riding hood]

Well what’s the goss? Is Sadstate still treating employees like mushrooms (most likely!) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gifand foremost what has been the verdict of the fed court? It is coming close to a year now surly a decision has been made!!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[600ft-lb]

Maybe the ramifications of this judgement is whats causing the judge to take his time. It could be massive for our industry. If you find a defect that isn't explicitly stated in the company provided inspection task, report that defect... what happens then.

The independence of the LAME in this country is riding on this case. Yes it's your licence, but the company might see your employment after failing to follow directions as something else.

[Chopper OZ]

Was it defective or a design fault? Maybe it was designed to be opened by a teaspoon! :8

[Jethro Gibbs]

coming close to a year now surly a decision has been made


Question is has anyone asked when will the decision be made or are they sitting back and waiting.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You can't ring up the Fed Court demanding outcomes. Waiting is the only option unless you want to get the judge offside.

[Bigdog01]

It would seem some of the connies are as rascally as the former full timers.
What a shame moving them on after a 400 course too I suppose, obviously no penalties involved as the company try to get the "right people".:yuk:

[L Riding hood]

Speaking of penalties any news on the 100 odd unlawful wages docking of the former employees? FWA? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[tarmacrat]

Good to see you don't need engineers!
Just seen on other thread they had engine problems down south?
How many did they get rid of and how long ago was, is it over 12 months ago now?

[The Hooker]

So Bigdog they have got rid of some more connies, you really don't surprise me, if they complain or raise safety matters they are history, don't rock the boat and you stay.

[Bigdog01]

It has been 14 months since they moved on, most are doing well elsewhere.
Have spoken to those who stayed (occasionally) and it would seem the situation although no worse hasn't improved.
Maybe I am just stupid but losing half if not more of your experience must damage the business. Obviously they had too many engineers for these new aircraft, with the canny buying of such quality aircraft by the been-counters reliability not affected (must be those special aircraft that don't require the added cost of maintenance).
No news on the court case ?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Na no news. It will be 12 months since case soon.

[Eastwest Loco]

Tarmacrat

Good call.

Over the last 4 weeks there have been 4 cancellations on the QF2061 or the QF2050 the following morning with the 300 cacking itself.

These things do run in spasms where you look at an aeroplane the wrong way and something falls off, but I have been reaccommodating passengers with outbound connections for over a month.

The 400s seem to be doing fine but the 300 is currently a worry to those who book clients, particularly those with outbound connections overseas on them.

Best all

EWL

[Stationair8]

EWL, might be time for the Vigin/Skywest ATR's to arrive on the scene and provide a little competition on the Pardoe Downs International to Melbourne run!

[Eastwest Loco]

Understandable call Stationair, however DPO would lose out overall.

We currently have the only TAS airport that is full service on every departure, has full bag check through (on a single ticket) internationally and can start overseas fares on QF, EK, BA, FJ and a bunch of others on the one fare basis which means the ticketing airline is responsible for the passenger all the way if a connection falls over.

If DJ dropped an ATR in it would most likely be middle of day unless they commit to 3 flights daily on the plum spots which I well know. The travel patterns haven't altered in over 30 years and most likely will not ever.

At best, the market for a single flight per day is not early or late which are the higher yield slots for the corporate/ sportsfans markets. Take a look at mel MQL - middle of the day, lower yield traffic for an aeroplane that can be much better utilized on the 0600 to 0900 and 1630 to 1930 slots on a market that pays the bigger bucks elsewhere. The MQL operation could be seen as "nuisance value" against Rex and Ratlink and no more. I would love to see the P+L on the route.

The other thing is thowing an ATR or whatever equipment into DPO would dilute the flow from the coast to LST and therefore reduce viability and returns ex there. When EW was operating ex DPO we were pulling an average of 25% of each load out of other catchments. That and other facto that the loads we were pulling out of LST and WNY as well as the damage being done on SYD OOL and SYD MCY among many others meant that slimebag Fatman with the help of his pocket pal the Bodgie had to buy us.

I can't see DJ entering, and hope they don't. They aren't required and will degrade the overall service as if Ratlink reduce flights the overnighter which is the most costly to operate due to hotel/cab/crew costs will most likel;y be the 1st to go and that is the most useful flight to the North West Coast.

If the low yield stuff can't get a seat cheaply ex DPO to MEL, they either get dropped at LST or get the Housing Commission Taxi, the Spirit of Tasmania.

Ratlink is providing a very good service, and hopefully the recent Q300 brain farts are cyclic and in general the service is excellent, but the jury is out on this matter to see if the reliability issues are because of a change in maintainence protocols we are unaware of.

I would like to think not.

Best regards

EWL

[600ft-lb]

just in:

Engineers part of 'subversive' campaign | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/engineers-part-of-subversive-campaign/story-e6frfku9-1226511412875)

SIX aircraft maintenance engineers complained about the safety of doors on Qantas-owned planes as part of a subversive campaign for better pay, a court has ruled.
The engineers reported in October 2010 that cockpit locks on Dash 8 planes operated by Qantas subsidiary Sunstate Airlines could be opened with an ice-cream stick or a rolled-up boarding pass.

They also noted the cockpit door could be opened by leaning against an adjacent toilet wall.

Almost the entire fleet of aircraft was temporarily grounded, disrupting the company's operations.

Each of the engineers received a letter from Qantas later that month, accusing them of misconduct over claims the complaints were part of unauthorised union action.

Qantas said there were no safety issues with the doors and that workers were simply using the "defects" to bargain for more money.

The men were stood down for 13 weeks while an investigation was conducted.

They later started working again, however each was docked four hours' pay over the incident and had an official warning letter placed on their permanent records.

The men, through the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, took the matter to the Federal Court in Brisbane in September last year.

They argued Qantas should be fined for breaching the federal government's Fair Work Act.

However, in a judgment handed down on Tuesday, Justice John Logan dismissed the application.

He found the engineers' actions "were not the acts of men faithful to their trade responsibilities".

"It is subversive of such a culture and antithetical to the public interest for what are, in reality, industrial actions to be cloaked as aviation safety issues," he said.

[neville_nobody]

Makes for a interesting precident.......Is the judge saying that a design fault is not an aircraft defect therefore not covered by the regulatory obligations of a LAME?

Or that the doors were not defective?

[600ft-lb]

seems like he took an easier path and ignored the defect aspect and considered it from an industrial point of view only.

[Long Bay Mauler]

I guess he made that statement after the defect was demonstrated to the court?

Or was the defect "rectified" prior to the court being able to observe for itself what 6 maintenance professionals notated to the company, thus allowing the expert testimony of management to rule the day?

[ACT Crusader]

Another article on it


Airline safety duties not a 'workplace right'

At presstime, the Federal Court had ruled that duties and obligations under civil aviation regulations do not constitute a workplace right after rejecting licensed aircraft maintenance engineers' adverse action claim.

The Australia Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association launched the adverse action claim on behalf of six Sunstate engineers who refused to release aircraft on October 19, 2010 after reporting defects and an excessive oil leak they said required an engine change for flight. The subsequent grounding of six aircraft occurred at a time when there were "go slows" and "unresolved issues" between ALAEA and Sunstate over the renewal of an enterprise agreement.

In response to the action, Sunstate gave the engineers formal warnings, rostered them off their usual shifts and docked four hours pay from their wages.

ALAEA alleged Sunstate had taken adverse action against the engineers for fulfilling their reporting obligations under the Civil Aviation Regulation.

Justice John Logan found the regulation was not a "workplace law" under the Act and so was not a source of workplace rights.

The judge conceded that workplace laws could extend to regulations made under an enactment.

However, "it does not follow from this conclusion that the two particularized CA Regs are a law of the Commonwealth 'that regulates the relationship between employers and employees'", he said. "Not only must the law 'regulate' but there must be an object of regulation of a particular specified kind - 'relationships between employers and employees'."

He found the object of the CA Regs was air safety and the employer-employee relationship was only "an incidental touchstone for the imposition of duties serving other ends".

Even if the regulation was a workplace law, he found Sunstate had not taken adverse action against the engineers because they exercised a workplace right. He found the engineers' reporting was "in reality industrial actions cloaked in aviation safety issues" and that they "deliberately" sought to find the defects "[W]hat occurred on the evening of Oct 19 were not actions of men faithful to their trade responsibilities," he said.

[600ft-lb]

(Taking the particular issue with Sunstate and the ALAEA out of this and focusing only on the ruling.)

I'm trying to make sense of the legal speak but as far as I can understand it, at the same time it is;

1. Illegal per the regs to sign an aircraft out as fit for service when it is not and/or has unactioned/outstanding undeferrable defects.
2. Not illegal for the employer to coerce (by threat of standing you down and/or sacking you) you to certify for an aircraft which you believe is not fit for service as per above.

Am I interpreting this ruling as such ?

We have 2 sets of laws that are in conflict with each other ?

[Collando]

What are the implications of this Fed Sec, does this mean any judgement of a Lame can be challenged by management who are not qualified to certify themselves ? Is the ALAEA going to appeal? Surely something is either serviceable or it isn't?

[gobbledock]

What the f#ck would a wig wearing gaylord know about aviation?
Most Beaks are too busy working out how to work a minimal hour week while pulling in close to 1 mill per year for the priveledge. They spend time pontificating and thinking they are god while stuffing their giant heads into the nearest tax payer provided trough.
I wouldn't generally piss on one if he/she were on fire. They are traditionalist robe wearing dross that are so disconnected from reality it is palpable.

I bend over and bare my ass it them all.

[Collando]

As Shakespeare said. To your own self be true. Stand fast for what you know is right.you are qualified to discern what is acceptable and what is not.
Be true to yourself and the regs. This is not an action to try and disrupt a company. It is a matter of making correct judgement if there is a safety issue.
Lives depend on correct judgement and safety comes before schedule. Right?

[owen meaney]

2. Not illegal for the employer to coerce (by threat of standing you down and/or sacking you) you to certify for an aircraft which you believe is not fit for service as per above.They were rectified and then certified by other (manager) LAMEs. It seems that the FWA didn't consider the doors an airworthiness issue.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Pretty crook decision guys. Our Lawyers were angry with it as I was. We agreed that the matter should be left a day or two before we read again and see if worth appealing. My initial thoughts are -

The Fair Work Act is now providing no protection for Aviation professionals if they are threatened by their employers because they won't break the law. The finding should be used to convince CASA and the Government that the Regs need to be changed to provide that protection. Unfortunately the Federal Government contains a number of politicians. More important to them is their Chairman Lounge memberships and free Grand Final Tix.

I suggest that we all as aviation employees vote in a block to the party/ind who actually will do something for us. I am over this Gillard sham Govt.

[600ft-lb]

They were rectified and then certified by other (manager) LAMEs. It seems that the FWA didn't consider the doors an airworthiness issue.

True, but this judgement seems to be that airworthiness is not the issue at hand. It seems to be more of a

"you didn't do explicitly what your employer told you to do and I find it suspicious (which you are guilty of) that you found these defects during a time of PIA for the sole purpose to create industrial pressure on your employer"

Justice John Logan found the regulation was not a "workplace law" under the Act and so was not a source of workplace rights.

From his point of view its 2 separate issues. He's made his judgement on workplace law not civil aviation law.

So taking the whole sunstate issue out of this judgement, there is no workplace protection for you if your employer coerces you to certify for an aircraft that is unfit to fly under threat of being stood down or sacked.

The CAA regs you work under offer no workplace protection. Basically, you f*** up you get strung up by CASA. You don't do what your boss says you get strung up by FWA. There is no legal middle ground or one overriding the other if those 2 laws conflict - in a possible situation where the LAME refuses to certify for a defect he in good faith won't do and the employer compels him to do.

[Sunfish]

Pickering is right. The labor party and the current Government are rancid from top to bottom.

The Pickering Post (http://pickeringpost.com/)

[Managers Perspective]

Don't all jump down my neck here, a couple of simple questions.

Were the doors defective, that is, what specified limit in an "approved document" was not able to be met?

My very raw understanding, and I am very happy to be corrected, is that there were no breaches of the Supplemental Type Design holder's requirements. That is not to say that the door lock wasn't ineffective, but that the design criteria of the door was met and the aircraft was in fact serviceable to the design standards.

Whether the door lock was effective to DOTARS requirements is very different to whether the aircraft is airworthy to Type Design requirements.

MP.

[peuce]

MP ... I think the door issue is now irrelevant.

The real issue is the conflict of laws.
AND it's not just confined to Aviation.

Ergo ... if a surgeon thinks that an operation would be too dangerous to undertake on a particular patient, BUT the Hospital directed him to do it ... where does he stand if the patient dies during the operation?

OR, where does he stand if he refuses to operate? Out of a job?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

MP thnx for some sensible questions/comments.

The STC (supplemental type certificate) says that the door must comply with its design documents including the section on requirements for continued airworthiness. In that approved document it states that -

"The cockpit and deadbolt assembly must function properly at all times in order to maintain a secure flight deck"

In his ruling the judge completely ignored these documents that formed part of the case and only addressed the Industrial side of things. The evidence shows that this part fitted to the aircraft was no longer in a condition to allow continued airworthiness (not airworthy to Type design standards) because it could no longer maintain a secure flight deck.

It should also be known that the managers who signed these aircraft out also changed the locks on each door first. If there was no defect they would not have done a thing. If it was not airworthiness they would have deferred.

Regardless of whether the defect was airworthness or not, all Engineers are obligated to report defects under CASA Regs. Airworthiness defects just need to be addressed differently.

[Wunwing]

Those who are following the Norfolk ditching saga will know that it has been suggested that the US FAA may be taking an interest in those procedings with the possibility of a downgraded rating of Australia now being discussed in mainstream press.
I wonder how the FAA will view this decision?
Wunwing

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Maybe I should contact the FAA.

[Wunwing]

That might at least get the Ministers attention. Nothing else seems to.

[Bigdog01]

it would appear that the managers percieved truth far out weighs the actual truth in the eyes of the wig wearing toffs.
Are we in the aviation industry subject to different laws to everyone else, For crying out load the building trades can shut down a site due to no cold drinks available. yet in aviation a major safety issue is basically ignored except the part not seen by the beeks - every aircraft has had a major modification carried out after the fact to fix this issue of the doors - wtf

Sad day really the regulatory body has let the team down, do we now have to think twice about defecting an aircraft due schedule pressure and face the wrath of the company in court where the the vastly experienced manager (not licensed on type) but an expert due to the position held can make the serviceability statement. Whilst sitting in his/her airconditioned office feet firmly planted on the ground.

Just my thoughts.

[Phalanger]

The court judgement has been posted. Few important notes:


Executing the task under the law was not a protected workplace right as the CA laws are between the employee and the aircraft not the employee and employer.
The judge considered if the minister made any indications of an intention to cover this area but it could not be found in any readings to parliament or earlier workplace laws.
However the judge did not like the case hanging on a single technical aspect of law meaning the case was not dismissed at this stage. Instead they also considered adverse action under the general protections considering the nexus of the actions taken.
Considering this the judge factored in the actions of the parties, the CA laws and the impact on the aircraft.



Bellow is the main issues the judge brought up:




It is not certain on the evidence as to precisely when after the start of September 2010 knowledge of the cockpit door issue came to the knowledge of each of the LAME employees. What is certain is that Mr Pengelly was aware of it by 16 October 2010 when he came to complete the QL3 describing this phenomenon. He said that he discovered it by leaning on the toilet wall of the aircraft and noticing that the cockpit door opened. By then Captain Schryver and later Captain Reitano had each submitted an SOR in respect of this same phenomenon and, as I have observed, remedial action was in train. In these circumstances, it is a most unlikely coincidence that Mr Pengelly chanced to discover this same phenomenon on 16 October 2010. Also to be taken into account in weighing up whether Mr Pengelly discovered the phenomenon by chance is the evidence, including that of Mr Pengelly himself, that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers routinely talk amongst themselves in the workplace about topical maintenance issues. I consider it inherently likely that skilled tradesmen rostered together would do this. When he was asked on 20 October 2010 by a Mr Rose about why the cockpit door locks had been inspected Mr Kuhanez mentioned that pilots had raised the issue and that Sunstate had not done anything about it. There was also evidence that licensed aircraft maintenance engineers rostered on a particular shift caught a bus from the maintenance facility together at the end of a shift. It was Mr Posavac who “closed off” on 17 October 2010 the QL3 prepared by Mr Pengelly in respect of the cockpit door issue on 16 October. Moreover and tellingly, when Mr Posavac “closed off” this particular QL3 he did so by fitting shims to the cockpit door striker plate in accordance with the AutoAvia designed Engineering Order requirements. In other words, Mr Posavac must well have known no later than 17 October 2010 not only of the phenomenon as to how the cockpit door might be opened but also that there was already in place a QantasLink initiated, fully approved modification to address this issue. Mr Kuhanez reported a like issue on 18 October 2010. He did this after he was told by Mr Posavac that he had repaired just such an issue the previous day.
On 17 October Messrs Pengelly and Fuller were rostered on and worked the day shift while Messrs Kuhanez, Posavac and Etherton were rostered on and worked the evening shift (which finished at midnight). In his initial affidavit, Mr Fuller stated that Mr Pengelly had demonstrated to him how the locked cockpit door on the Dash 8 could be opened by flexing the adjacent (toilet) wall. That Mr Pengelly had such knowledge by then accords with his having completed the QL3 on that subject the previous day. Mr Fuller also stated in his initial affidavit that Mr Pengelly had also demonstrated to him how the cockpit door lock could be opened by pushing a key into the lock and levering it open. In his later affidavit filed in June 2011 in this proceeding Mr Fuller stated that Mr Pengelly only came to show him how to open the lock in this way on 20 or 21 October, ie after the night of 19 October 2010. He retracted this in his oral evidence. Mr Fuller’s first and more contemporaneous account is inherently the more likely.
Of the LAME employees, it is more likely than not that Mr Pengelly, Mr Posavac, Mr Kuhanez and Mr Fuller were each aware of the cockpit door phenomenon prior to 19 October 2010. They did not just chance upon the issue on the evening of 19 October 2010 and thereby, so it was submitted on behalf of the ALAEA, then and there become duty bound to report the same as a defect on a QL3. Further, notwithstanding that there was an obvious widespread knowledge about the cockpit door issue and the cockpit door lock issue by 18 October 2010 there had been no concerted action amongst the LAME employees or any of them to address the same with their supervisors on their initiative by that time. This was so notwithstanding, for example, Mr Fuller’s statement that a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer in possession of such knowledge and not acting on it would be in breach of his duty as a member of that trade.



So the judge does not like that they were sitting on the issue. If it was a concern they should have exercised it straight away. By not acting Logan considered this a breach in itself.



A notable feature of Mr Etherton’s oral evidence was that his demonstration of how he did this differed from his earlier indication as to the entry point Mr Posavac had showed him. Mr Etherton also stated that he found he was able to open the cockpit door by pressing against the toilet door frame. In the course of the QantasLink investigation which followed 19 October 2010 events Mr Etherton stated that, once these issues were discovered, discussion took place amongst some of the licensed maintenance engineers on that shift about their being insufficient time left during the shift to fit shims so as to address the toilet door flexing. On this version of events, this indicates an awareness then of the existence of an approved resolution method as specified in the Engineering Order. Yet when asked in evidence as to what research, if any, was undertaken in relation to the QL3 which he completed that evening he stated that, “time constraints prevented me doing any research into the issue”. This was, to say the least, odd as the very man who asked him to go to aircraft VH-TQM and whom he said had conducted a demonstration there, Mr Posavac was the same man who had, as I have already noted, earlier adopted that approved method to close off an earlier QL3 in respect of aircraft VH-QOD on 17 October 2010. Further, in his first affidavit, Mr Etherton stated that he had assisted Mr Posavac in that task on 17 October 2010. All in all, I did not find Mr Etherton a reliable historian. What is certain, based on the contemporaneous documentation, is that he did complete a QL3 on the evening of 19 October 2010. Further, it is more likely than not that, in so doing, he was well aware before 19 October of the existence not only of a door flexing issue but also that how to resolve the same had already been settled. I also doubt that the potential for the door lock to be opened by insertion and manipulation was a revelation to him that evening.
As to Mr Baldock, the evidence that he gave in his first affidavit was that, in the course of the evening shift on 19 October 2010, Messrs Pengelly and Kuhanez had had a discussion with him during which Mr Pengelly told him that he had by chance discovered a problem with the Dash 8 cockpit door when he accidently lent against the toilet door wall and found that the cockpit door popped open. Mr Baldock stated that he considered this to be a serious problem because the cockpit door area of the QL3 was supposed to be able to resist forcible entry as well as gunfire and shrapnel. According to him, he, Mr Pengelly and Mr Kuhanez agreed together to look out for this problem on other Dash 8 aircraft. It was for this reason, so he stated, that, during an internal inspection of aircraft VH-QOF, he decided to examine the cockpit door and its lock. It is noteworthy, as to the lock, that Mr Baldock’s account as to what he had been told of the problem by Mr Pengelly did not include his being given any detail as to how the lock itself might be manipulated. Rather, he said that when testing the cockpit door for vulnerability to opening by the flexing of the toilet wall he noticed that the internal of the lock mechanism was visible and that this prompted him to investigate it further.
In contrast, in Mr Baldock’s second affidavit and in the course of his oral evidence he stated that he was informed by Mr Kuhanez that he (Kuhanez) had the previous evening (18 October 2010) found a defect with the door lock on VH-QOD. Yet in his first affidavit and for that matter in his response to a question in the course of the post-event QantasLink investigation, he made no reference to Mr Kuhanez as the source of his information as to vulnerability in the lock itself. In his second affidavit Mr Baldock stated that he only filled out the QL3 that evening after already having reported what he discovered to the shift supervisor Mr Blanch who told him to report the defects he had seen. He also stated that, before so doing, he had discussed the defects with Mr Pengelly. The differences in the accounts which he gave at various times made me regard Mr Baldock as an unreliable historian.
On the whole of the evidence, it seems to me much more likely than not that the LAME employees set out as a group to cause maximum disruption to Sunstate on the evening of 19 October 2010 by a concerted reporting of phenomena already by then well known to each of them. I also doubt that it was a coincidence that the QL3 in respect of these phenomena were lodged late in the shift that evening, as late in the case as two of them as just minutes prior to the close of the shift. Indeed, it seems inherently likely that Mr Kuhanez lodgement at 23:23 on Monday, 18 October 2010 of a defect entry in a QL3 in respect of Dash 8 aircraft, registration number VH-QOD, but then newly modified, was something of a rehearsal for the concerted action which followed the next evening.
The unreliability of the accounts given by the LAME employees was in marked contrast to the account given by Mr Lidbury both as to the actions which were taken within QantasLink following the evening of 19 October 2010 and as to why he had come to make particular decisions in respect of those particular employees.



So basically the judge did not believe their actions were reasonable in carrying out their duties but of a different nature.

Logan wraps it up simply as follows:



In his business role, Mr Lidbury formally reported to Mr Kumar but the reporting truly was formal. So far as the decisions taken by Sunstate in respect of the LAME employees were concerned Mr Lidbury was for all practical purposes the directing mind and will of that company. Even if, contrary to the conclusion which I have reached the particularised CA Regs could ground “workplace rights” for the purposes of the Fair Work Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/), I am well satisfied that Mr Lidbury did not make the decisions in respect of the substantiation of Allegations 1 and 2 and the subsequent sanctions because the LAME employees had exercised or proposed to exercise those workplace rights. Yet further, these sanctions were certainly a reasonable, even a restrained, managerial response having regard to the findings made.
While the conclusions which I have reached dictate that this application must be dismissed it is desirable in the circumstances of this case and having regard to the objects of the Fair Work Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/) (s 3 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s3.html), particularly objects (a) and (f)) to conclude with these observations.
The trade of a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer is an honourable and responsible calling. The myriad of people who daily commute by air in, to and from Australia rely upon persons engaged in this trade faithfully to perform their duties. There is a strong public interest, evidenced by responsibilities specified in the CA Regs, in the promotion within workplaces where licensed aircraft maintenance engineers work of a culture whereby persons in this trade are encouraged to report faults in respect of aircraft. Further, the existence of such responsibilities must be recognised and not exploited by employers and unions in negotiations concerning pay and conditions.
The evidence establishes that the QantasLink operators, materially including Sunstate, did promote and encourage aircraft fault reporting by employed licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. It is subversive of such a culture and antithetical to the public interest for what are in reality industrial actions to be cloaked as aviation safety issues. Perhaps it was that the LAME employees felt sorely tested by the state of negotiations concerning a replacement industrial agreement. However that may be, and it is no part of my role to make any arbitral decision concerning where the merits of the underlying claims in respect of a replacement enterprise agreement lay, what occurred on the evening of 19 October 2010 were not the acts of men faithful to their trade responsibilities.



The fact he found the actions were not faithful and a form of unprotected industrial action is rather important for Qantas as it means they now have actions under tort laws against the parties.

Judgement:
Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Sunstate Airlines (Qld) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1222 (6 November 2012) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1222.html)

[tarmacrat]

is there any good to come from this as a LAME and the ALAEA?

[gobbledock]

Gold!!

Qantas soothes Jewish concerns

by Damon Kitney
From:The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
November 03, 2012 12:00AM

QANTAS has moved to reassure members of the Australian Jewish community that they will be able to fly to Europe and Britain on partner airlines without travelling through the United Arab Emirates after the airline's landmark deal with Dubai-based Emirates.

Senior figures in the Jewish community are believed to have been initially angered by Qantas's decision to sign a joint venture with Emirates in September because of the problems it would cause Israeli passport holders and due to the UAE being a participant in the Arab League boycott of Israel.


http://www.novelties-direct.co.uk/images/D/d-7043-3097.jpeg

[Bagus]

all they want to do is screw the LAME'S,for protecting the public who fly,these gov ministers and qf management are all in bed together,this time vote this gov out.

[Phalanger]

is there any good to come from this as a LAME and the ALAEA?If they had not pushed this in the first place then they would of not had the judgement about it being unprotected action. Sometimes it is better to know when you are on the back foot. It's a rather comprehensive judgement in that the judge did go out on a limb to give them an extra chance as he considered it in the public interest. He then decided what happened was not.

It would seem the general protection clauses will give some support if people are diligent in carrying out the CA. This is a matter of public policy. But this case shows you can't sit on them on a known issues then bring it up when desired for no reason. You need to be diligent from day 1. If you do not act on it promptly but then do later it is considered that you are either (1) putting people in danger not carrying out your role or (2) believe otherwise but trying to cause issues.

The other important thing was also they could not show there was any culture of danger. The airline fixed the issues before placing the aircraft back and had supported rectifying the issue on an aircraft earlier

It turns on how the people acted not if they acted. Actions should of been done in a way to minimise damage (that does not mean you don't act on issues, just not in a manner which causes more damage than necessary). Especially durring times like those.

[neville_nobody]

I thought the issue was first presented to CASA and/or DOTARS who promptly handballed it and as a result it was then written up as a defect because the LAMEs had nowhere else to go and were legally exposed if someone busted open the door in flight causing a security breach hence the delay between finding the defect and writing it up.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The judge got the sequence of events wrong. As soon as the defect was found it was reported. The previously known shimming fix was related to something else.

It is more like this. The judge decides he is going to rule one way. He then throws every reason he can even remotely think of into the decision to deter the losing party from appealing his finding.

Not much good to come out of this though. It may be the catalyst for change to aviation laws though.

[Phalanger]

Read the judgement. There is a length discussion on when they knew about the issue. There were too many issues with the story.

[tarmacrat]

What are the many issues with this story?
I though there was only one as LAME's.

[Phalanger]

The issue was their stories changed in different declarations. They got to a point where they conflicted with paper evidence and work tasks which meant the judge had little reason to follow them.

[Isamu Pahoa]

I think that it would not have gone to court anyway, if CASA had backed the LAMEs in the first place. CASA should get a bullet for allowing this to get so far. The latches were clearly defective. They had to be written up to get them replaced. There is no other avenue for the LAME to use. The LAME can't just wait for crew to raise defects, because they also are too scared to put pen to paper. This is a useless situation and it can't improve unless something changes:ugh:

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This is a useless situation and it can't improve unless something changes

This is so true. Our whole industry is stuffed because of a useless Government and morally corrupt airline Executives.

[owen meaney]

To the innocent bystander, it appears that the defect was written up at end of shift, mmm now that makes me wonder, and then was rectified by a certifying LAME prior to release to service.
Or is the evidence to hand incorrect?

[b55]

The flight deck door safety/security issue came up during a long,company protracted EBA where lowly qlink managers could not be compromising with any employees in the Qantas group. The fact that it was the end of a shift is not significant. It actually gave the management lame time to "do his own thing" and clear the defect reports before the next mornings flying. If they had written them up in the morning, it would have been a real problem with pilots sitting on the flight deck and passengers at the gate.

[Bigdog01]

Was it slated for hearing in the correct way. Having read the report it was interesting to see that they the LAME's coluded to cause disruption to the company business. LAME's australia wide could be accused of colusion everyday as we often ask other LAME's about defects found or are asked by other LAME's have you ever seen this defect and how did you rectify it.

So it would appear that when push comes to shove as in this case, you are only allowed to defect one airplane at a time even if it is a common problem or to make 6 individual phone calls to the trusted management engineer (who's bonus is directly linked to aircraft departures) to make the correct assessment of the defect :confused:
I hope we never have to resort to the later comment
"LONG LIVE COLUSION"

[gobbledock]

"LONG LIVE COLUSION"
Most collusion takes place in Board Rooms, in executive Politician lounges, in the Courthouse chambers and in the spin doctors 'war rooms'.
Long live collusion you say? To late to prevent it happenning, its here and here to stay. Welcome to a 'democratic society'. Bulls#it.

[Jethro Gibbs]

Remember its only a Scam if your not involved :ok:

[unionist1974]

What a joke SP has turned into , he knows better than a qualified judge . Steve you are an average LAME but a very poor lawyer

[Bigdog01]

Question: we have had the ruling so where to now ? :confused:

I see ads for permies not contractors in Brisbane, has the EBA or EA been resolved or will the new guy's be employed under the very attractive old EBA which caused the stink in the first place.
I also hear through the grapevine EAA are now 2 EA's ahead of the sunny boys.

Has somebody dropped the ball and lost it in the tall grass, it seems appaling that there is such a divide between 2 groups operating the same equipment under the same banner.

As for another thread "Jets for the Link" already covered with Cobham and now Network.

[unionist1974]

Yes , the ego of the FS got in the way of proper advice and representation