PDA

View Full Version : Rumour: Sunstate Engineers suspended over aircraft sabotage?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Toluene Diisocyanate
29th Oct 2010, 02:44
Heard a few days ago that a number of Sunnies engineers have been suspended for willfully damaging the cockpit doors on a number of planes (more than 5).
Possible legal action in the wind?
Is that the way to get movement on your E.B.A. negotiations?
Does anyone have any more info??

Skydrol_ise
29th Oct 2010, 06:07
Very interesting situation [email protected]% UNION versus QANTAS versus ?
Would be nice to hear official comments from CASA, either the doors comply or dont.
:D
Also an official statement from "STREETS" ice creams denying all legal knowledge of making and supplying "weapons" of potential mass destruction :ok:

The Qantaslink paddle pop stick up – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/10/27/the-qantaslink-paddle-pop-stick-up/)

this link to Ben S reporting may be the closest to the truth.
But would like to know the exact circumstances LAMES were stood down.

ALAEA Fed Sec
29th Oct 2010, 22:38
In answer to the rumour - No it is not true that 6 or any LAMEs have been stood down for damaging aircraft.

6 LAMEs have been stood down for writing defects into the Tech log snagging the cockpit doors. The company claim they have been looking in areas of the aircraft for defects when they had not been instructed to look there.

Just think about that concept for a while, we couldn't believe it when they gave them the letters.

The doors had been reported at least a month earlier by Tech Crew on SORs and ASIRs. No action was taken to fix the problem until the 6 LAMEs snagged them in the Tech Logs. Mods now underway.

LAME2
29th Oct 2010, 22:50
I think this rumor needs some validation. Is the standown of 6 employees true? Is it considered by their colleagues they damaged company property or did they refuse to certify for the defect? I'm suspecting the later and the company convinced FWA it was industrial action outside of PIA.

ALAEA Fed Sec
29th Oct 2010, 23:26
Please read my words again.

They are currently stood down.

The allegations are not that they damaged an aircraft or refused to sign off a defect.

The allegations are that they raised a defect for further investigation. ie, they wrote in Tech Log - Cockpit door found to have gap between **** and **** that a small object can be inserted into to unlock door.

They are alleged to have deliberately been looking above and beyond what they were told to look for. Company claim that the daily check requires a general cabin inspection, not a detailed cabin inspection and the defect they found could not be picked up in a general cabin inspection.

They didn't fix it because they were not long off going home and didn't know what component would fix the problem that was essentially a design flaw.

Gas Bags
29th Oct 2010, 23:51
With the current media attention on this very issue one would assume that every Sunstate LAE would be aware of the issue and then face the quandary of deciding whether the doors are 'legal' or not.

That leads back to the age old adage of the engineers professional responsibility to rectify a known defect, regardless of whether it is specifically called up for inspection.

There could be a chance of underlying issues behind this particular occasion, or not, however if the secure flight deck door modification was approved by CASA then it would therefore be deemed by tham and the company to be legal. That a subsequent design flaw has been discovered should therefore be raised directly to the QA department of Sunstate and ultimately to CASA to have this rectified.

I am not condoning nor favouring the actions of the six engineers, however I do consider their actions as 'going out on a limb'.

I would have got the QAM immediately involved in the issue and placed the ball firmly in the QA departments hands as opposed to a group action like what happened that could be completely misconstrued in the cold hard light of day.

I certainly hope that the ALAEA can resolve this situation quickly and effectively for the guys involved.

GB

Barry Mundy
30th Oct 2010, 00:18
Comments by ALAEA Fed Sec are true no sabotage just that these engineers could have written up the defects. Further disturbing is the fact that a senior Sunstate Pilot was stood down at same time as engineers by QANTASlink "management" after initially raising this issue some time ago. As stated Tech crew have raised this previously. Situation at Sunstate is now ready to explode there is simply no morale throughout any section of Sunstate operations. Well done you have succeeded in bringing a great company to implosion.:ugh:

Ngineer
30th Oct 2010, 00:31
They are alleged to have deliberately been looking above and beyond

Above and beyond??? On the contrary, it sounds like they should be nominated for an excel award.

LAME2
30th Oct 2010, 01:04
Stood down for complying with your legal responsibilities to CASA. Very disturbing. I do the same thing every day at work. Write up defects I have either no time or parts to fix and leave it to the other shift after conducting a hand over. If these actions can cause cancellation of PIA and perhaps loss of employment, where will we all stand into the future?

Short_Circuit
30th Oct 2010, 04:46
I am not condoning nor favouring the actions of the six engineers, however I do consider their actions as 'going out on a limb'.

So, next time I am in the F/D checking the oxy pressure (as per the transit chk) and I smell an electrical arcing smell and see the window heat light flickering, I would be going out on a limb by investigation the possibility of a loose power terminal connection on the windscreen with a possible cross threaded terminal screw etc. or should I just make sure the F/D door is fully closed behind me when I leave so the smoke does not enter the cabin? :ugh:

ozbiggles
30th Oct 2010, 05:18
If it is as the FED Sec tells it then I look forward to the fallout from it. Normally I'm not in favor of people going to town in a legal sense but in this case I'm willing to make an exception!

LAME2
30th Oct 2010, 05:20
It would not do any good to shut the door at QANTALINK. If you can open the door using unapproved methods, the smoke will leak into the cabin anyway!

In jest only, I would depower the aircraft and await the response from the flight crew. If they are not concerned with reporting such an incident (and I make note here one of QANTASLINK Flight Crew is rumored to have been stood down for reporting the problem along with the 6 Engineers), then my nasal and visual sensors must be wrong that day.

In reality, I would hope no one would walk away from such an event, Engineer or pilot alike.

Gas Bags
30th Oct 2010, 05:27
Short Circuit,

You may have taken my statement out of context.

There is a big difference in the scenario you are suggesting, to ignore electrical arcing and the situation that has arisen here.

There can be no comparison in the negligence it would require to ignore a defect such as window heat light fickering accompanied by an electrical arcing smell, and the raising of defects in the log surrounding what could be construed by some as a political issue surrounding a possible design flaw in a CASA approved AD compliant modification such as the secure flight deck door in question.

It most certainly is going out on a limb when 6 different LAE's are involved in the same action surrounding a topic that had already become a politically charged item in the media.

The correct course of action is through the correct channels, the first of which is the respective QA department and its manager.

Again I will iterate that I am neither condoning or approving the actions taken, I am merely stating that there are ways and means to achieve goals and getting yourself suspended does not help.

GB

NAMD
30th Oct 2010, 06:21
It shouldn't matter how they found it, but as soon as the defect is found, it must be reported.

CAR51 clearly states:

Where a person who, in the course of his or her employment with an employer, is engaged in the maintenance of an Australian aircraft becomes aware of the existence of a defect in the aircraft, the person shall report the defect to his or her employer.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll report anything I see fit, not just what I'm "meant" to be looking at

DasTrash
30th Oct 2010, 07:30
Mark Davey: Message to QantasLink Staff Earlier this evening there has been media coverage relating to cockpit door access on our QantasLink Dash 8 fleet. The reports included claims by ALAEA’s Federal Secretary, Steve Purvinas, that : (i) the cockpit doors on the QantasLink Dash 8 aircraft are unsafe and do not meet regulatory requirements, (ii) that management has been aware of this for some time and did nothing to rectify the situation and (iii) Sunstate LAMEs who investigate the cockpit doors will be reported to Fair Work Australia. I can confirm that Senior QantasLink Engineering staff have reviewed the cockpit door installation and have validated that the door installation is in full compliance with both CASA and DOTARS regulations. A program to further upgrade security of the doors was commenced well before either the LAMEs or Mr Purvinas elected to report this issue to the media. The program is well advanced and will be completed by our maintenance staff by Friday 29 October. And finally, Fair Work Australia ruled last Wednesday 22 October in favour of QantasLink by declaring that the Brisbane LAMEs have been taking unprotected industrial action with the support of the ALAEA. The Commission has subsequently issued a Stop Order against the ALAEA and the LAMEs. The Company is required to investigate and report any unprotected industrial activity. The ALAEA are using the media as part of their ongoing Sunstate Line Maintenance industrial campaign. Please find below a copy of the media statement released by Qantas in response to the ALAEA claims. Narendra Kumar Executive Manager QantasLink
27/10/2010

The company have had door issues for years with several pilots picking up injuries due to the locking mechanism on some of the Q400s. The proposed solution to that problem is a joke and a half :ugh:, and I hear that the FA union has put a hold on the new plan.

b55
30th Oct 2010, 08:03
Where is this going do you think?
Is a general walkout possible to develop on this issue of standing down engineers and pilots for just doing the right thing; both line engineers and line pilots?

Short_Circuit
30th Oct 2010, 08:20
GB
May be out of context, but a defect is a defect is a defect, regardless of who, where, when or why it is discovered. It must be reported and answered appropriately. If you are aware of common problems or latest hot issues (ie, simple AD related inspections currently in a system), it is appropriate to keep an eye out on every A/C you work on. After all, that is our job as maintainers. To be stood down for doing so is obscene.
SC

Fuel-Off
30th Oct 2010, 08:55
Hold up...so let me get this right. A pilot and 6 engineers have been stood down for fulfilling their legal obligations by reporting a defect. I'm astounded! What the hell has happened to this industry to allow this sort of thing to happen??? CASA should be interested in not only the defect that has been reported but this apparent 'no-reporting' culture adopted by the Company. Outrageous.

Fuel-Off :ok:

airsupport
30th Oct 2010, 09:05
They are currently stood down.

The allegations are not that they damaged an aircraft or refused to sign off a defect.

The allegations are that they raised a defect for further investigation. ie, they wrote in Tech Log - Cockpit door found to have gap between **** and **** that a small object can be inserted into to unlock door.

They are alleged to have deliberately been looking above and beyond what they were told to look for. Company claim that the daily check requires a general cabin inspection, not a detailed cabin inspection and the defect they found could not be picked up in a general cabin inspection.

They didn't fix it because they were not long off going home and didn't know what component would fix the problem that was essentially a design flaw.

IF this is true, it is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard of in the Industry. :mad:

Is there nothing the ALAEA can do for them??? :confused:

Sunfish
30th Oct 2010, 20:58
This is again the classic informal company culture versus formal company culture.

The formal company culture of Qantas appears to be "we are the worlds safest airline", backed up by references to devoted experienced Australian engineers, rock solid procedures, etc. etc.

However the real informal company culture is "look the other way".

airsupport
30th Oct 2010, 21:18
As I said before, IF this is true it is one of THE most disgusting things I have ever heard, and I have heard and seen a few disgusting things after more than 40 years in the Industry Worldwide, although never with Qantas or its group.

Are you saying that say an LAME is given a specific task of checking the wheels and brakes on one of these aircraft, and while doing so he cannot help but see that one of the propellers is damaged, he is supposed to not only NOT write it up but also NOT tell anyone as it was not his task to look at the props? :ugh:

IF things have got that bad in the Industry, PLEASE let me know and I will take a train or bus in future travels. :(

BigHelga
30th Oct 2010, 22:27
Are you saying that say an LAME is given a specific task of checking the wheels and brakes on one of these aircraft, and while doing so he cannot help but see that one of the propellers is damaged, he is supposed to not only NOT write it up but also NOT tell anyone as it was not his task to look at the props?

Sadly, I got my first taste of this attitude approximately six years ago during induction week into a particular facility when the comment was made "If you see a problem outside the area you are specifically working in, don't distract yourself with that problem, someone else will have the task to inspect that area and they will deal with it"...or words to that effect.

I was shocked at this comment. It went against everything I had been taught throughout my career,

Thus, the seed of my disengagement was sown!

airsupport
30th Oct 2010, 22:40
Again, IF this is true, which it seems it is, it has to be the most unethical and unprofessional attitude from Management that I have ever heard of. :mad:

Does this apply to Pilots in this Company also? :confused:

Apart from if Pilots see something wrong with their aircraft, following this disgusting way of doing things, IF one of their Pilots is following another aircraft and he sees the other aircraft is on fire does he say nothing as it is not his business and he was NOT told to watch out for other Pilots in trouble? :mad:

mainwheel
30th Oct 2010, 22:43
May i suggest repair or replace them ASAP and leave the aftermath to Warranty department.:)

grrowler
30th Oct 2010, 23:01
The company has known these doors (at least on the 1/2/300 series - not sure if the 400 doors are different) can be easily opened by various non-approved methods since they were installed, or very soon afterwards. Think SeQurity, just don't say anything:hmm:

Going Nowhere
30th Oct 2010, 23:04
6-7 of the Q400's have the old style 'Casscade' doors, being -QOA-F/H.

Splitpin44
31st Oct 2010, 01:43
Sadly, I got my first taste of this attitude approximately six years ago during induction week into a particular facility when the comment was made "If you see a problem outside the area you are specifically working in, don't distract yourself with that problem, someone else will have the task to inspect that area and they will deal with it"...or words to that effect.

Yep I was at the same induction and the best thing I ever did was leave that facitity:)

Everyone will be happy to know that the manager who said that is still there promoting this idea.

Short_Circuit
31st Oct 2010, 01:54
"If you see a problem outside the area you are specifically working in, don't distract yourself with that problem, someone else will have the task to inspect that area and they will deal with it".


Bigger holes in the Swiss cheese.:eek:

airsupport
31st Oct 2010, 01:58
Everyone will be happy to know that the manager who said that is still there promoting this idea.

NO................. :mad:

Obviously don't name names here, but is this person just a number cruncher?

PLEASE tell me he is NOT an LAME. :(

BrissySparkyCoit
31st Oct 2010, 05:23
Obviously don't name names here, but is this person just a number cruncher? I don't believe he was a LAME. He sits in an office now. Made the journey west across the ocean to join us in Brisbane. I'm trying to be civil. Does that help?

"If you see a problem outside the area you are specifically working in, don't distract yourself with that problem, someone else will have the task to inspect that area and they will deal with it". I almost fell off my chair when I heard him say that!

airsupport
31st Oct 2010, 06:22
I don't believe he was a LAME

Okay, well obviously he should NOT be in the job at all. :=

However IF he was an LAME himself that would be ridiculous, as I would hope no LAME would think like that. :eek:

aveng
31st Oct 2010, 14:51
Gas Bags
It is a legal requirement that defects be entered in the log book. Sure, contact the QA department, but if you have any experience at all in dealing with QA you'll understand that they mostly work 9-5 Mon-Fri. The aircraft must be prevented from departing with defect first. You wouldn't ignore and engine defect and let the a/c depart whilst you were on the phone to QA.:confused:

Terminalfrost
31st Oct 2010, 23:42
Just to reiterate. The doors were reported as required when the defects were discovered, QA and Safety departments were informed. Sunstate procedures for reporting major defects or safety incidents don't provide any feedback for the person submitting.

Whilst Sunstate and Qantas both claim outrage and industrial espionage over the "discovery" of these door problems and deny that there was anything wrong with the doors in the first place, they have had modifications drawn, approved and incorporated on these very same doors that coincidently fix the very problem that was reported.

As Sunstate don't communicate with their engineers very well and didn't put out a maintenance memo highlighting these door problems, or even issue a workcard to inspect these doors at the first opportunity, an engineer that is aware of the existence of a defective component is naturally going to - as they have always done, have a look at the said component the next time they are in the vicinity of it.

This is the standard that Australian Engineers set when they maintain aircraft. This is the normal custom and practice. If Sunstate hadn't skimped on getting the slightly more expensive electronic latched doors originally to save a few bucks they wouldn't have the problems they have at the moment. No long term thought from those that chose the options. That is not the fault of the engineers that report and rectify defects.

By the way the Maintenance Manager that doesn't want people to look outside of the narrow description on a job card - wouldn't look like an American talk show doctor would he?

Gas Bags
1st Nov 2010, 00:52
We are not discussing a DEFECT, we are discussing a DESIGN FLAW. They are two very different things and how they are treated is different as well.

Sue Ridgepipe
1st Nov 2010, 01:25
I don't see the problem here - if somebody writes something up in the tech log and it gets checked out and found to be within limits or comply with the regs, then it will be signed off as okay and no more problems. If, however it cannot be signed off as okay, then it becomes a deferred defect (if allowable) or it gets fixed.
So if the doors meet the requirements and there is no problem with them, just sign them off and away you go. If they can't be signed off, well there must be a problem with them. What am I missing here?

LAME2
1st Nov 2010, 03:39
Are these the same mangers who thought a handover of the shifts was an authorised Union meeting! If so, this is what we are missing.

I think to understand these fools, you have to have an appreciation they wanted to give the union a blackeye and to have the PIA cancelled. I think we sometimes put these people in a place where we believe intelligent people operate. Really they do not deserve that sort of recognition. These pople operate with no understanding of their workforce legislative requirements, or their needs for that matter. They are consumed by the desire to put people down and suppress them. They enjoy it. They high fived when they saw this opportunity. Common sense never saw the light of day.

They're fools. Sink these Management people and all that were involved in this decision Fed Sec. It is what they wanted to do ultimately to all association members, using these 6 engineers and the pilot as pawns. Send them to the boneyard at the NSW railways with their other colleagues from mainline.

DasTrash
1st Nov 2010, 05:21
Flt Ops Admin
Message to all QantasLink Staff 29 October : I refer to recent allegations by the ALAEA that the cockpit doors on QantasLink Dash 8 aircraft are unsafe and that the fleet should be removed from service. As a result, OTS and CASA conducted an inspection and review of Dash 8 cockpit doors yesterday. This review was conducted in Sydney by a combined team of specialists from OTS and CASA who reviewed technical documentation, interviewed QantasLink Engineering staff and inspected two Dash 8 aircraft. After completing their inspection, CASA and OTS found no reason to remove the QantasLink Dash 8 fleet from service. Narendra Kumar, Executive Manager QantasLink

1Nov2010
So is there an issue with the doors or not? Or do they just have to look as if they can be locked?

ALAEA Fed Sec
1st Nov 2010, 06:18
G'day all,

Been away and come back to a growing thread and a few questions/ideas thrown around by posters, particularly Gas Bags.

We are not discussing a DEFECT, we are discussing a DESIGN FLAW. They are two very different things and how they are treated is different as well.

A defect is when something is defective or not working properly. There can be airworthiness defects or non airworthiness. A design flaw is one of the many causes of a defect. You can't ignore an aircraft defect because it was caused by a design flaw.

Some suggestion earlier as well that they should have gone to QA first and then not snagged them becasue it was already a hot issue in the press.

The pilots did go to QA. Nothing happened for over a month. The LAMEs logged the defects in the Tech Logs before it was public. It only went public when nothing happened even after the defects were written up.

I'll finish up with this message from Qantaslink Management from the same bloke who wrote the letter standing the good LAMEs down. I was around Qantas for Safety week. Free sausages and handouts showing you how to do office stretches. At least they appear concerned about safety. The truth is another matter.




Message to all QantasLink Staff


Qantas Safety Week was held across the business units during the past week. We came together to demonstrate and drive genuine commitment to safety for air, ground, people and health. A range of activities and events have taken place where employees focused on safety as our first priority, celebrated our achievements and took the opportunity to reflect on the previous years’ events and performance.

It is important that we never forget that prevention is always better than cure. The human and material costs of treating injuries and correcting failures in the aviation industry are significantly greater than stopping them from happening in the first place. What's more, it isn't tough to do - the key to success lies in everyone taking responsibility and being accountable for the safety of our customers, our colleagues, our families and importantly ourselves.

Your involvement and support across the business unit is critical to making Safety our first priority . I would like to thank those individuals that worked exceptionally hard making safety week a success .

Remember to think safe, act safe, be safe!

Narendra Kumar

Executive Manager QantasLink

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 06:31
The LAMEs logged the defects in the Tech Logs

IF that is true, how on Earth are these aircraft still operating??? :confused:

ALAEA Fed Sec
1st Nov 2010, 06:38
They were signed out by Managers.

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 06:46
They were signed out by Managers.

Okay, that was why I asked earlier IF this guy causing all the trouble was an LAME, and I was told he is NOT. :confused:

So there are other Managers, who ARE actually also qualified LAMEs, clearing these defects. :mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec
1st Nov 2010, 06:52
That is correct. The LAMEs finish just before midnight and then 2 or 3 Managers who used to work as LAMEs come in and pen off the defects left by the crew.

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 07:02
That is correct. The LAMEs finish just before midnight and then 2 or 3 Managers who used to work as LAMEs come in and pen off the defects left by the crew.

Okay, so as long as the Managers are qualified on the aircraft and their Licences are current, I guess it is not illegal, highly immoral, but not illegal. :mad:

So do these Managers also release the aircraft to service in the morning?

Also doesn't any other LAME have to certify for each aircraft during the day?

IF you are who you say you are, surely there is something you can do to stop this horrid situation?

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard of after more than 40 years in the Industry. :mad:

LAME2
1st Nov 2010, 07:23
I'm at a loss to think why this would have happened other than to say it was to give the Association a blackeye and achieve cancellation of the PIA. If we assume they are intelligent, seems to me they have opened up a pandoras box and are hoping the Association mishandles the response.

Is there not an part of the Act or Regs that makes it illegal to coerce or influence a person to contravene the Act or Regs? Would being stood down not influence your decision? Seems the certifying managers have been influenced by those above them.

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 07:35
The post I came to respond to appears to have been removed, or deleted. :confused:

This is the standard that Australian Engineers set when they maintain aircraft. This is the normal custom and practice.......... That is not the fault of the engineers that report and rectify defects.

I agree, that is why I am so annoyed and disgusted by this goings on. :mad:

DasTrash
1st Nov 2010, 07:37
The LAMEs finish just before midnight and then 2 or 3 Managers who used to work as LAMEs come in and pen off the defects left by the crew.
That would explain why the same defect often appears in the defect book multiple times. The crew notice the fault and write it up, the LAMEs don't get a chance to fix the fault but it gets signed of anyway, the next day the crew notice the fault and write it up....
:suspect::ugh::ugh:

601
1st Nov 2010, 07:46
Managers who used to work as LAMEs come in and pen off the defects left by the crew

Is there an entry in the log book ( or whatever Qantaslink use) to detail what maintenance was done to clear the defect before it is signed off?

If so what does it read?

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 07:55
2 or 3 Managers who used to work as LAMEs come in and pen off the defects left by the crew

I take it these Managers are NOT current members of the ALAEA? :eek:

Otherwise surely the Association could do something about this horrid situation?

I know it is considered un Australian, but this is ridiculous, have these Managers been reported to CASA?

Something NEEDS to be done............... :mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec
1st Nov 2010, 08:14
Is there an entry in the log book ( or whatever Qantaslink use) to detail what maintenance was done to clear the defect before it is signed off?



The night that 7 aircraft were grounded, the Managers got them all out in the morning after changing the latches. The new latches had exactly the same defect.

I know it is considered un Australian, but this is ridiculous, have these Managers been reported to CASA?



Yes. for a few similar matters like this for the after midnight maintenance such as signing out of category and ignoring cracks in strut components. Casa have not got back to us and the managers are still on the loose.

In this instance (the doors) we went to Aviation Security as they own the legislation that is being breached here.

The govt departments haven't been very helpful in fact the head of Aviation Security threatened me with jail if I went public with this stuff. Nothing got fixed so we went public.

airsupport
1st Nov 2010, 08:29
Yes. for a few similar matters like this for the after midnight maintenance such as signing out of category and ignoring cracks in strut components. Casa have not got back to us and the managers are still on the loose.

This is just SO wrong. :mad:

I can see why the Company would be trying to keep it quiet, but CASA have a responsibilty to keep up the standards and ensure everything is being done properly. :mad:

What about the Pilots, are they scared of the Company? IF they know about this I am surprised none of them have bought into it. A lot of Captains I have known over the years would have just refused to take these aircraft. :ugh:

BrissySparkyCoit
1st Nov 2010, 09:40
By the way the Maintenance Manager that doesn't want people to look outside of the narrow description on a job card - wouldn't look like an American talk show doctor would he?

Take one step down the ladder and you are there.

The issue of the guys being stood down for doing their job LEGALLY and simply following what they are OBLIGED to do in the terms of their licence, smacks of bullying by management. This is perhaps one of the lowest acts I have seen so far.

gobbledock
1st Nov 2010, 12:49
I can see why the Company would be trying to keep it quiet, but CASA have a responsibilty to keep up the standards and ensure everything is being done properly. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

Now that is fuuny !

LAME2
1st Nov 2010, 13:01
Steve, how do the Managers know to come into work (due to uncleared defects)? Do they only do this if there is an AOG and they do not want to pay the overtime for a LAME to stay back or start early? Do they come in early each mornig to check what's outstanding, then rectify and certify for those items before the dayshift appears? What is the timeframe between when the guys wrote the defects up and they were stood down? I'm guessing this only occured due to the PIA? Normally the Engineers would stay behind to rectify?

Thanks.

Sweet Surrender
3rd Nov 2010, 02:05
If the engineers truly believe that a person will subdue the flight attendants and break into the flight deck with their rolled up boarding pass then full marks to them for writing up the problem. If they are writing up a bogus defect to further their industrial claims then shame on them.

LAME2
3rd Nov 2010, 05:38
Sweet Surrender, I think you are way off the mark with your comments. I think it is pretty clear, the affected employees were doing their job as detailed in the applicable CAR.

Skydrol_ise
4th Nov 2010, 16:17
It seems A380 Engine MELs are more of a worry presently than DHC8 doors ;)

But I still have a techo question, DHC8s I remember had cockpit door
(non cascade) with a plate on the back (cabin side) covering the gap where the lock operates. so paddlepop stick, or screwdriver or anything else wouldnt be able to be poked through the gap to unlock it. Cascade doors had the electrical release and a button in cockpit from memory, not sure if they had the cover plate on the back.

Going Nowhere
11th Nov 2010, 21:56
Word is that Alliance to do 3 BNE-ROK-BNE flights a day until Jan due to lack of crew/engineers.

Let's see how the spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations explain this one! :E

airsupport
11th Nov 2010, 22:20
I am surprised they have anyone working for them, especially Engineers. :mad:

Have the LAMEs been reinstated yet?

scumbag
11th Nov 2010, 22:47
4.68
Other security measures Part 4 On-board security Division 4.4
Regulation 4.68
Additional requirements for security of flight crew compartment — aircraft with seating capacity 30 or more
This regulation applies in relation to an aircraft operated for the purposes of a regular public transport operation or an open charter operation (in each case, whether a domestic or an international air service).
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 30 to 59 must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that is:
(a) designed to resist forcible intrusion by unauthorised persons; and
(b) capable of withstanding impacts of at least 300 joules at critical locations; and
(c) capable of withstanding at least 1113 newtons constant tensile load on the knob or handle; and
(d) designed to resist penetration by small arms fire and fragementation devices to a level equivalent to level IIIa of the United States National Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ) 0101.04 Revision A, as in force on 15 January 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 60 or more must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that complies with section 13.2.2 of Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, to the Chicago Convention, as in force on 28 November 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note The section is as follows:
‘13.2.2 From 1 November 2003, all passenger-carrying aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 45 500 kg or with a passenger seating capacity greater than 60 shall be equipped with an approved flight crew compartment door that is designed to resist penetration by small-arms fire and grenade shrapnel, and to resist forcible intrusions by unauthorized persons. This door shall be capable of being locked and unlocked from either pilot’s station.’.
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 179



So how did these doors comply with 4.68(a)? :hmm:

Skynews
11th Nov 2010, 23:59
how do these doors comply with 4.68.(a)?


I suspect they hide behind the word "designed". The doors were designed and approved in accordance with 4.68(a) i am guessing, however as happens the design has not lived up to it's promise.

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2010, 07:04
Are the 6 back at work yet? or does the buggery campaign continue? :=

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2010, 07:59
No they 6 are still off work.

The Qantas group are ruthless in their persecution of those who don't assist them with their game of hide the sausage from the regulators. They have all now received letters from Freehills law firm (the ones who wrote little Johnnies workplace laws) and Qantas will be doing everything to defend their position of punishing employees who do terrible things such as reporting defects that they don't want anyone to know about.

I know management read this site. Let me make one thing clear. If you harm our brothers any further I will be calling on our Aviation Federation, our Pilot friends and the entire industry to get behind these LAMEs who have just done what the CARs require of them. It will be number one item on every news outlet in this country and your reputation will suffer.

cheers
Steve P

airsupport
14th Nov 2010, 08:12
I will be calling on our Aviation Federation, our Pilot friends and the entire industry to get behind these LAMEs who have just done what the CARs require of them.

I am shocked and disappointed that the whole Industry is NOT already backing these LAMEs 100%........... :ugh:

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2010, 08:21
I am shocked and disappointed that the whole Industry is NOT already backing these LAMEs 100%........... :ugh:

I think they are along with the public but rather than have rallies at the airports today, lets just see how far Alan wants to push the issue.

airsupport
14th Nov 2010, 08:27
I think they are along with the public

GOOD............ :ok::ok::ok:

Sunfish
14th Nov 2010, 08:58
I wonder if CASA is now going through the QF A380 aircraft and engine documentation with a fine tooth comb.....

Can't manage a cockpit door, let alone an RB211.

Will they lift the QF AOC?

To put it another way; How can QF thunder about its "unbroken safety record" in relation to the A380 incident, at the same time penalising LAMES who are responsible for the "Unbroken safety record"?????

Did a Qantas LAME see the oil stains on the RB211 and look the other way?

What we have here is cognitive dissonance. Either QF is the worlds safest airline, courtesy of its engineers, cabin crew and pilots, or its a sh1tty make believe cash generator trading on its unearned reputation.

Which is it? It can't be both.

Arnold E
14th Nov 2010, 09:40
Its reputation was earned, but a long time before these clowns were running the show:sad::sad::sad:

framer
14th Nov 2010, 11:35
Its reputation was earned, but a long time before these clowns were running the showhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif


Spot on Arnold. They know too,these clowns, that each time they cut costs further that they are chewing into the fat, they just don't know when they're going to hit the bone. It will come to a head soon enough, within ten years I predict an executive manager will be held accountable for loss of life. Then the erosion will have reached it's maximum.

airsupport
14th Nov 2010, 18:41
It will come to a head soon enough, within ten years I predict an executive manager will be held accountable for loss of life. Then the erosion will have reached it's maximum.

Surely something can be done before that happens. :eek::ugh::mad:

gobbledock
15th Nov 2010, 10:33
I have an intersting point to make. My background involves safety, but from an investigative direction. But this morning I was perusing ICAO's website looking through some of their annexes and I noticed that under a safety management system the CEO is the accountable person within the company. It also mentions a 'just culture'. Excuse me if I am wrong, but if the safety management system is actually in legislation, why is the CEO in this case not being held accountable for the issues at hand ? Or does accountability only kick in when deaths occur ? Under a 'just culture' wouldn't the actions that these 6 LAME's took constitute a positive and proactive attempt to resolve a potentially dangerous issue, and if anything shouldn't they be rewarded ? I have not seen or heard of any wilful violation perpetrated by these LAME's, if this is true it must therefore be a breach of QF's own safety management system to act the way they have done towards the LAME's in question ?

It has to be unbelievable that no regulatory action has been taken against QF in this instance alone ?

The public, media, industry employee's and every listening ear needs to get behind these LAME's and demand that the injustice that has been served upon them be revoked. This would appear to be a despicable and of more concern dangerous display of arrogance on behalf of QF and the regulatory powers in Sydney.

SeldomFixit
15th Nov 2010, 10:43
The day ANY aviation professional is " forbidden " to point out a safety or security issue whenever and wherever they find them will be the day we should fold the tents and give up.
It was always my understanding that an Australian LAME was in effect, a delegate of the Airworthiness body, of the day.
The shambolic state of today's body is an indication of why Qantas management can tout " world's best practice " and get away with it.:ugh:

Spanner Turner
15th Nov 2010, 11:21
The day ANY aviation professional is " forbidden " to point out a safety or security issue whenever and wherever they find them will be the day we should fold the tents and give up.



aaahhh, that day HAS come - best we start folding! :(

.

Sunfish
15th Nov 2010, 17:34
Seldom:

The day ANY aviation professional is " forbidden " to point out a safety or security issue whenever and wherever they find them will be the day we should fold the tents and give up.

It was always my understanding that an Australian LAME was in effect, a delegate of the Airworthiness body, of the day.

The shambolic state of today's body is an indication of why Qantas management can tout " world's best practice " and get away with it.

The regulator, CASA, appears to religiously audit GA operations and either prosecutes under the criminal code or takes away the livelihood of LAMES for any slip or error they have made.

Lets assume that this cockpit door problem existed on a Two bit charter operator in Western Australia, and it was detected by a random audit by CASA. Outcome?

1. Show cause notice issued to the operator as to why AOC should not be cancelled for this gross violation of the regulations?

2. Prosecution of the LAME who had signed the maintenance release.


To put it another way; if the LAMES concerned do not report the defect they are in violation of Australian law.

Shell Management
15th Nov 2010, 18:19
I've always found Australian management rather prehistoric in their attitudes.

However is this not just union politicing in front of the Senate?

ALAEA Fed Sec
15th Nov 2010, 18:48
Why would a union just politic in front of the Senate? I haven't sat before them for 3 years.

Most of the posts here are industry participants sharing their views.

airsupport
15th Nov 2010, 18:57
Again, I think it is truly disgusting that nothing is being done about this, to the Company and their Management, but mainly to help these LAMES. :ugh:

However I guess some things never change. :(

When Compass was operating we had numerous visits from CASA Inspectors on the line on A300s waiting to depart, not once when the aircraft were overnight or idle, delaying their departure while they checked all the paperwork, and they found nothing wrong.

Once when it was the third time in a week they did this I said to one of them why do you do this to Compass but not the others?

He said we do this to ALL Airlines on a regular basis.

I then said to him bul****t, I was with (one of the other Airlines at the time) for more than 28 years and you NEVER did it even once.

Needless to say he had NO answer. :mad:

27/09
16th Nov 2010, 01:39
airsupport

Could you be suggesting that the other airline and CASA were on the "same team"?

Is it possible that CASA and a certain airline might be on the "same team" now?

You may feel you need to use that oft quoted statement from the comedy, Yes Minister, "I couldn't possibly comment on that".

ALAEA Fed Sec
16th Nov 2010, 01:57
Just for your info all,

I was at a meeting with Qantaslink management yesterday and a copy of this thread was put on the table by them. They essentially asked if I was threatening them with my previous post. I let them know that I was and that the fallout should they take any action against our 6 would be too much for them to cope with.

cheers

airsupport
16th Nov 2010, 02:26
Could you be suggesting that the other airline and CASA were on the "same team"?

Is it possible that CASA and a certain airline might be on the "same team" now?

I am NOT suggesting anything with regards Compass 1 and 2, NOT suggesting because I KNOW they were. :mad:

However it was NOT the Airline that is the subject of this thread, it was the Airline that is no longer operating itself, so I had better not say too much. :rolleyes:

I think any reasonable person would now think there is a very close and cosy relationship between CASA and Qantas. ;)

airsupport
16th Nov 2010, 02:30
Just for your info all,

I was at a meeting with Qantaslink management yesterday and a copy of this thread was put on the table by them. They essentially asked if I was threatening them with my previous post. I let them know that I was and that the fallout should they take any action against our 6 would be too much for them to cope with.

cheers

Thank you for the update. :ok:

I just cannot believe this is happening in Australia. :(

I worked all over the World in my Lifetime in the Industry, under a CASA Licence but in Countries including Russia, Vietnam and many others, and have never heard of such a ridiculous situation with LAMEs. :eek:

Hopefully it will be sorted VERY soon. :ok:

fdr
18th Nov 2010, 20:58
SB:
4.68
Other security measures Part 4 On-board security Division 4.4
Regulation 4.68
Additional requirements for security of flight crew compartment — aircraft with seating capacity 30 or more
This regulation applies in relation to an aircraft operated for the purposes of a regular public transport operation or an open charter operation (in each case, whether a domestic or an international air service).
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 30 to 59 must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that is:
(a) designed to resist forcible intrusion by unauthorised persons; and
(b) capable of withstanding impacts of at least 300 joules at critical locations; and
(c) capable of withstanding at least 1113 newtons constant tensile load on the knob or handle; and
(d) designed to resist penetration by small arms fire and fragementation devices to a level equivalent to level IIIa of the United States National Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ) 0101.04 Revision A, as in force on 15 January 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
The operator of an aircraft that has a certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 60 or more must not operate the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit door that complies with section 13.2.2 of Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, to the Chicago Convention, as in force on 28 November 2002.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note The section is as follows:
‘13.2.2 From 1 November 2003, all passenger-carrying aeroplanes of a maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 45 500 kg or with a passenger seating capacity greater than 60 shall be equipped with an approved flight crew compartment door that is designed to resist penetration by small-arms fire and grenade shrapnel, and to resist forcible intrusions by unauthorized persons. This door shall be capable of being locked and unlocked from either pilot’s station.’.
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 179



How did they comply you ask?

Cynically, you could argue that they do, as the gap may stop bullets (big ones anyway... grenade shrapnel is more problematic... ) and it doesn't require a forceable entry to use a popsicle stick to slide a bolt out of the way... therefore is complies with the legal definition but not the intent. (now where have I heard that before?). CASA, shame on you. Engineers, there are still places in the world that value your abilities and integrity.

In relation to the overall pathology of management, it appears that Sunstate has taken some pointers from Qantas Management of old, the one that raises the following discussion between "the departed" and their lawyers...


"Hi, I am interested in information on ____'s, can you help me?"

"Worked for Qantas did you?".

Used to be a similar relationship with one particular company and Stop Orders...

SilverSleuth
19th Nov 2010, 10:32
So what is the latest here? What are the union doing about it?

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2010, 11:12
It's in the hands of the Federal Court as we speak.

airsupport
19th Nov 2010, 18:30
It's in the hands of the Federal Court as we speak.

Please keep posting news of this disgusting un Australian treatment of these LAMEs when you have any, thank you. :mad:

buttmonkey1
21st Nov 2010, 10:40
Hope sanity prevails if it ends up in court orders.
And those bringing these outlandish claims shown the door.

QFBUSBOY
23rd Nov 2010, 06:46
It will be interesting to see if the Captains quoted in the letter from QantasLink management will be able to sign a Statutory Declaration backing up these claims,and if push comes to shove, will the Captains be able to front up in a court with hand on heart?

And that is assuming that the Captain who shows up, is the 'said' Captain whose name appears in the Techlog or any other document from that service. I am sure a roster or some other officially signed document from that service will clarify that all is correct and above board.

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

Clipped
23rd Nov 2010, 07:36
Absolutely disgraceful, the Qantas Group's tactics.

But are we surprised? No way, Clifford and his henchmen want to bring the unions to their knees. Staff engagement, what a ploy.

Long live the legacy. Arise the Army.

division1
23rd Nov 2010, 10:16
I can see a massive proxy pia effort come jan.
Just like Deja Vu, and the assclowns will fall.

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Nov 2010, 10:58
For the info of non ALAEA members reading this thread. Qantaslink have commenced docking LAME wages under the banner of unlawful action (at 4 hours pay each time) for ridiculous things such as -

starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).And then there was this one. I don't think any tech crew would be stupid enough to report it to management even if it was said. It wasn't but lets not let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to take money off a valued employee - (Fyi tyre was down to canvas)

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg

A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.

Arnold E
23rd Nov 2010, 11:02
starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).

How the hell is that legal, much less moral???:confused::confused:

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Nov 2010, 11:19
It's not legal or moral. Qantas are well aware though that it would take 6 months at least to put it through the court rooms before the blokes could recover their money. I wrote to Alan about a month ago and sought his intervention to prevent a minor dispute getting nasty. He wrote back and basically said it was in the hands of IR. In other words, Alan is aware of this crap, has been given other options and endorses it continuing. You can read more on our website if interested -


All Members-Notice 046 ? Sunstate Fighting Fund (http://www.alaea.asn.au/notices/195-all-members-notice-046-sunstate-fighting-fund.html)

cheers
Steve P

division1
23rd Nov 2010, 12:01
Is there a credit union account for donations?
I'll be stumping up some $$$ tomorrow.
These IR people are way out of line,
AJ should get some new advisers.

Sunfish
23rd Nov 2010, 16:29
There is a tribe of lawyers who specialise in this sort of bastardry in a few of the big law firms. They make it into an art form. They will harass an individual or group of employees way past any limits of humanity, law and reason as long as they are paid.

You should also be aware that just because Qantas is doing something with the advice of a law firm does not necessarily make it "legal". It may require a court to decide legality.

The major problem with using such firms, from a management perspective, is that they need to be kept on a very short leash or they can do permanent damage to employee / employer relationships.

Qantas should think long and hard about what they are doing before they cause permanent damage, if they haven't already.


By way of example, I was once asked by the Board of a certain company to inflict a new employment contract, written by a well known legal wolf pack, on some Seventy employees working the division I was running.

This little gem contained draconian provisions one of which was to the effect that if the company had to go to court to enforce the agreement with the employee, the employee would pay all the companys legal costs! The real kicker was that the employee agreed that they would never go to court to enforce the agreement against the company!

I took one look and sent a copy to a good legal friend who practiced in such areas. He checked with a few more legal eagles. The advice I received was that the agreement was so biased against the employee that it was unenforceable and that any judge shown it would have gone apoplectic especially regarding the latter clause I quoted.

I went back to the Directors and told them "If you want to strengthen this agreement, water it down."

airsupport
23rd Nov 2010, 19:29
For the info of non ALAEA members reading this thread. Qantaslink have commenced docking LAME wages under the banner of unlawful action (at 4 hours pay each time) for ridiculous things such as -
starting work at 0515 but didn't attend aircraft until 0525 (docked 4 hours)
aircraft check plus any rectification was estimated to take x hours but it took twice as long (docked 4 hours even if you weren't working the aircraft).
an aircraft was not fixed by midnight and you didn't call the manager (docked 4 hours).
And then there was this one. I don't think any tech crew would be stupid enough to report it to management even if it was said. It wasn't but lets not let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to take money off a valued employee - (Fyi tyre was down to canvas)

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/700/yepqg.jpg

A total of around 100 dockings were fabricated by the Qantas law firm with the LAMEs now being docked up to 28 hours pay each.

This is just SO :mad: ridiculous.

How on Earth can any Company, let alone our National Carrier, get away with such actions. :mad:

Although I have now retired our Family often still fly and always with Qantas, something we will have to reconsider in view of this COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND UN AUSTRALIAN behaviour. :mad:

Arnold E
23rd Nov 2010, 19:44
This has ramifications for EVERY person working under an award in Australia. I certainly hope this IS being taken to court to get the money back and the people responsible dealt with accordingly.
I just cant believe this is happening in Australia and the company is getting away with it.:ugh::ugh:

feetonthedash
23rd Nov 2010, 21:32
CASA Hello....................are you guys looking at this?

:sad::ugh::uhoh::confused::bored::eek::(

peuce
23rd Nov 2010, 23:32
And you are all still working for this mob?

I know, easier said than done ... but there eventually comes a time when enough is enough ... I know I have been faced with that decision in the past ... and have made it ...

Worrals in the wilds
23rd Nov 2010, 23:37
Fed Sec,
Good luck fighting this, even if it takes a while. It's a dreadful way to treat the employees that keep the aircraft flying.

ALAEA Fed Sec
24th Nov 2010, 06:35
I think the Qantaslink Engineering doesn't come under Chris N's portfolio. From memory he is EGM Engineering for Qantas Airways.

The ones above him are behind this crap and groups IR team.

Guys I have had numerous private messages from those wishing to contribute to assist these good LAMEs. I will post banking details once the account is ready. ALAEA members should only donate through the appointed Reps and Co-ordinators.

cheers
Steve

ALAEA Fed Sec
24th Nov 2010, 19:53
Fighting fund details are as follows. This account is held by the ALAEA and all donations will be directed straight to the Sunstate LAMEs under the guidance of the ALAEA Trustees. Members should not transfer in this manner as locally appointed Reps and collectors are tracking the donations from each department. This transfer method should be used by our Flight Crew friends, retired LAMEs, Alan and good industry persons concerned about the goings on at Qantaslink.

Commonwealth Bank Account
Payee Account Title: Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
Account number - 0080 1800
BSB number - 062 190
Please state in reason for transfer - Sunstate Fighting Fund



Many thanks in advance.

DeafStar
25th Nov 2010, 01:31
Donated. Keep up the good fight.

WoodenEye
25th Nov 2010, 09:24
Thank you to the LAMES who have kept me safe for 40 years.

It goes without saying, pilots rely heavily on the competency of LAMES, whose ability to make sometimes commercially inconvenient decisions, is necessary, if pilots are to continue to have confidence in the aircraft they fly.

Personally pleased to have had the opportunity to make a donation. After all, our future is in your hands.

Sprite
25th Nov 2010, 10:00
................

Section28- BE
25th Nov 2010, 11:08
G'Day Sprite,

As far as Serviceability- threat of punishment from beancounters, 'Should' mean absolutely nothing and never happen, at all- ever, for time eternity, ask the Regulator.....

They don't get a vote.......... Ever, Not Once, Never Have- tis the LAW- it's a hindsight profession and Never Has/or Ever Will create Revenue or Go Forward, or Make An Aeronautical Judgement (because, they are NOT QUALIFIED.....), and how the balance has 'Apparently' shifted, should it be the case.

And be it the case- ..... it is Sad in a Country that by it's nature once relied on Aviation Innovation to conquer the tyranny of distance in a Social Justice sense, to be here now..............

All involved/& Fed Sec, an interesting situation (as reported), best wishes to all for a just & expeditious outcome.

Rgds all
S28- BE
We have lost this nation as to Aviation in general & the Spirit of Australia- haven't we.............. ?????

600ft-lb
25th Nov 2010, 12:03
, means absolutely nothing, at all- ever, for time eternity, ask the Regulator.....

They don't get a vote.......... Ever, Not Once, Never Have- tis the LAW- it's a hindsight profession and Never Has/or Ever Will create Revenue or Go Forward, or Make An Aeronautical Judgement (because, they are NOT QUALIFIED.....), and how the balance has 'Apparently' shifted, should it be the case.

Tell that to the blokes who have been docked 28 hours pay for such indiscretions as;

-changing a wheel beyond AMM limits

-underestimating rectification hours for a defect

-writing up supposedly defective cockpit doors

-taking 10 minutes to get ready in the morning

-writing up supposedly defective seatbelts beyond AMM limits

It has become a toxic company for work for that sunstate, management can decide if you have been carrying out unprotected industrial action and they 'must' fine you 4 hours pay for each indiscretion.

So when some bloke has real life bills to pay and real life mortgages and real life medical expenses, whats could possibly be the case if he decides he doesn't want a part of it and looks the other way to something. I'm not saying they will, I and everyone else who flies on aircraft certainly hope not, but adding another, financially punitive action to doing what you're employed and legislated to do at the total 100% discretion of management who at odds with an EA wage claim... who are the winners ?

Testing ground for upcoming EA disputes with the mainline perhaps ?

ALAEA Fed Sec
25th Nov 2010, 21:01
It's one month today that the 6 Sunstate LAMEs have been stood down with allegations related to snagging the cockpit doors. That's correct, you weren't instructed to look specifically at the doors, we only wanted a general cabin inspection. Your breach of company policy may now lead to dismissal.

The Qantas group - Always putting Safety first.

spirax
25th Nov 2010, 21:26
What ever happened to the "just culture" policies that QF have promoted over the years?

It does not appear to be a deliberate or malicious act, which under the just culture principles would be the the only cause for disciplinary action.

My guess is that much of this has been the result of poor communications within the organisation. :mad:

Short_Circuit
25th Nov 2010, 21:51
My guess is that much of this has been the result of poor communications within the organisation

No. It is the reemergence of the buggery campaign of 2008.

airsupport
25th Nov 2010, 23:02
I have searched very extensively for any news about this anywhere in the media and cannot find anything. :(

Where are all those journos when you need them to help right this disgusting wrong. :(

Anyone know any good journos. :E

ALAEA Fed Sec
25th Nov 2010, 23:21
I did 9 news in Bne about it. Also was on 7pm project where it was discussed. Lots of radio but not sure about print media.

airsupport
26th Nov 2010, 00:36
I did 9 news in Bne about it. Also was on 7pm project where it was discussed. Lots of radio but not sure about print media.

I never watch 9, except for the Cricket, I saw you on the 7PM Project as I always watch that, and I remember seeing you and from memory you mentioned about opening the doors with a paddle pop stick, but I don't remember you actually mentioning the shocking plight of these LAMEs, unless they cut that out. :(

Cannot find anything in Newspapers or even with on line searches. :(

I am sure that if the Aussie public knew what was going on they would be just as outraged at Sunstate (Qantas) as I am. :mad:

Ejector
26th Nov 2010, 01:16
If this was not so serous, it would be a good joke.

I would think you were talking about some west African outfit, I am shocked you are talking about Qantas. The mind boggles. :ugh:

airsupport
26th Nov 2010, 02:06
I am shocked you are talking about Qantas

Yes it is truly disgusting how Qantas, the so called Spirit Of Australia, could possibly do such disgusting UN AUSTRALIAN things. :mad::mad::mad:

airsupport
26th Nov 2010, 03:43
Well I finally found something on one of the news sites, from earlier this month, however the story has been so twisted out of shape by Mr Joyce I doubt if anyone could follow it, never even mentions the aircraft type in question. :ugh::mad:

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

(QUOTE)


A war of words between Qantas and an engineers' union has intensified over maintenance issues following a mid-air explosion on one of the airline's A380s.

Qantas has suspended all of its A380 flights while it investigates why one of the plane's four engines exploded shortly after leaving Singapore for Sydney on Thursday.

Qantas on Friday said the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) had claimed a number of engineers had been stood down as a result of the incident on board QF32, adding that it "strongly refuted" that had happened.

However, ALAEA federal secretary Steven Purvinas said he had never suggested the six engineers were stood down as a result of the explosion on board the A380 aircraft.

"I never said they were stood down as a result of this incident," he told AAP.

"The point I was making was that this points to a dramatic shift in the culture of Qantas, which used to encourage workers to look for defects.

"Now they would rather you don't look and if you do, you will be sent home and subject to a disciplinary hearing."

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said in a statement that Mr Purvinas was wrong to say Qantas engineers has been stood down because of the incident on QF32, which was forced to turn back to Singapore following the explosion.

He said the cause of the engine failure was still being investigated, but it appeared likely to be a design problem.

"It is clearly too soon to speculate on the cause of yesterday's engine failure," he said.

Mr Joyce also said the engineers referred to by Mr Purvinas were employed by QantasLink in Brisbane and were directed not to attend work last week while a disciplinary matter was investigated.

But Mr Purvinas said it was because they had looked for plane defects that they had not been asked to check.

He said safety was a growing concern for Qantas engineers, because of outsourcing of maintenance work.

Mr Joyce rejected this, saying the overwhelming majorityof its maintenance was undertaken in Australia.

The A380 in question recently underwent its first heavy maintenance check by Lufthansa Technik in Germany, and Rolls Royce engines were overhauled at Rolls Royce facilities, Mr Joyce said.

"To suggest that Lufthansa and Rolls Royce do not have the expertise and experience to undertake the highest quality aircraft and checks is ludicrous," Mr Joyce said.

He said the A380s would remain grounded for "as long as it takes for us to be absolutely sure that the aircraft are going to be safe to fly".

(END QUOTE)

Mr Joyce, nobody said the LAMEs have been stood down over the A380s.

airtags
26th Nov 2010, 03:49
so what's the tally for the month..(and we have a full week to go)

1 x JQ FO (with another to come)
6 x Sunstate Engineers
1 x FA who was aparently affected following a mid air incident

and ............still awaiting the outcome of the witch hunt now underway for those who lodged submissions to the Senate Enquiry but did not request confidentiality.....(technically a confidential Senate Enquiry is not a public statement but.......)

At this rate AJ might just get his 10% cost reduction through terminations alone.

AT :E

LAME2
26th Nov 2010, 04:29
sorry wrong thread.

Short_Circuit
26th Nov 2010, 05:54
Fighting fund details are as follows. This account is held by the ALAEA and all donations will be directed straight to the Sunstate LAMEs under the guidance of the ALAEA Trustees. This transfer method should be used by our Flight Crew friends, retired LAMEs, Alan and good industry persons concerned about the goings on at Qantaslink.

Commonwealth Bank Account
Payee Account Title: Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
Account number - 0080 1800
BSB number - 062 190
Please state in reason for transfer - Sunstate Fighting Fund


This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are at all concerned where this is heading, it is now your time to contribute to aircraft safety, whether you sit at the pointy end or in row 73 of any airline. Vote with your wallets for safety sake. This will not stop at Sunstate but will flow through to all (so called) Australian Airlines.

I have. :)

ampclamp
26th Nov 2010, 09:10
Just a note of thanks to woodeneye.Works both ways mate:ok:

I had my life saved twice by good pilots when things turned to poo in flight.
Without doubt I would be here without their skill and experience.No BS.

Makes the last 30 odd years seem worthwhile when someone says thanks.:)

1746
26th Nov 2010, 09:21
We have lost this nation as to Aviation in general & the Spirit of Australia- haven't we.............. ?????

'fraid so!

Jabawocky
26th Nov 2010, 10:37
LAME2.........I assume that was directed at me...yes I did post something on the wrong thread but I see a Mod may have fixed that! :ouch:


So a challenge to all you folk out there who have not donated and are not pilots or LAME's.........at some point your backside is in an RPT aircraft and its time to put your money where your mouth is. I have just tossed a good donation at both the funds tonight because its worth it.

As to the QF group who have had my loyal and company loyal support for some time.....Its Over. despite some of my close friends being C&T's at JQ and other retired folks at QF, and other good mates at QFlink currently, there is no more loyalty including the several hundred thousand FF points I have having burned most this year.

My company travel is now going to be directed elsewhere where practical rather than the other way around. If Mr Borg gets a few thousand business folk like me thinking this way he will be on a winner.

Enough is enough.

J:ok:

Ndicho Moja
26th Nov 2010, 12:46
Count me in as a donor.

Section28- BE
27th Nov 2010, 04:19
1746-

Yep....., I think so..

28

airsupport
2nd Dec 2010, 18:19
No further news yet on this disgusting business? :confused::mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec
2nd Dec 2010, 19:01
The six have all been advised that they are to attend meetings between Mon and Wed next week. Its unclear what the purpose of the meeting is. It may be to further interview them or hand down their verdicts.

airsupport
2nd Dec 2010, 19:07
Thank you for the news. :ok:

Please continue to keep us informed about this disgusting situation. :mad:

Sunfish
2nd Dec 2010, 19:17
ALAEA Fed. Sec, I assume there will be a union representative in attendance and that notes or a recording will be made? Sadly, the only reason for scheduled individual meetings is termination, or an attempt via a "show cause" process to produce self incrimination leading to the same outcome.

ALAEA Fed Sec
2nd Dec 2010, 19:38
Yes they will have the appropriate level of representation.

The following motion was passed by ACTU Executive in support.


executive resolution Wednesday, 1 December 2010



Aviation Industry Support Executive notes that Australian Pilot and union delegate Joe Eakins and six Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Qantas Group companies have recently been dismissed or stood down from duty for raising safety issues on Qantas Group aircraft and activity undertaken as a union delegate. Additionally Qantas is currently seeking damages of up to $4.5 million dollars from nine individual TWU Officials for assisting baggage handlers who objected to working with labour hire employees who had not been given the appropriate AFP/ASIO clearances to work on Australian Airports.

The ACTU is concerned about any punitive action against Australian Aviation workers where they raise legitimate safety and security matters in the Aviation Industry, or because of their important responsibility as a union delegate. Executive resolves to support the Aviation unions in their endeavours to support the rights of workers to raise safety issues, and in particular the right of delegates to actively represent the concerns of members.

Australian unions want a safe, productive and secure aviation industry, and will continue to oppose actions that put airports, aircraft, lives and a billion dollar tourism industry at risk. The ACTU will consult with aviation unions to develop a collective response to these issues.

airsupport
3rd Dec 2010, 02:04
This just gets worse and worse, if possible. :mad:

I cannot believe that the Industry in Australia has sunk this low. :(

I was always so proud to be a part of the Industry for some 40 odd years, now I am glad I am retired.

Good luck to all involved in these digusting and UN AUSTRALIAN disputes with the Spi**t of Australia. :mad:

airsupport
6th Dec 2010, 00:53
Steve,

PLEASE keep us advised when there is any further news regarding this disgusting business, thank you.

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Dec 2010, 01:11
Hey all,

The six have been called in for further interviews today, tomorrow and Wed. Still off work.

cheers

airsupport
8th Dec 2010, 18:21
Steve,

Is there any further news yet on this disgusting un Australian treatment of these LAMEs by Qantas. :(

How did the meetings go?

I just cannot believe this can possibly happen in Australia, especially at a place like Qantas. :mad:

Also of course these LAMEs were doing their job as basically Representatives of CASA, Licenced by CASA, where does CASA stand in all this shocking business? :confused:

Why aren't CASA backing them? :confused:

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Dec 2010, 23:21
Mate in my opinion CASA are an arm of the Qantas IR office. We have advised them of about a dozen non compliances at Sunstate in the last 3 weeks and what have we heard? SFA.

The blokes had interviews but I am not sure what happened in there. They are still stood down atm. I advised them all beforehand not to answer anything verbally, must be done in writing and I am assuming they are going through that process.

Looks like they will be off for Christmas. It would be nice if the Qantas group could stand down all LAMEs who snag a defect for the festive season but apparently they can only afford to have 6 guys off. So as it stands, they think they can selectively stand down LAMEs who snag aircraft, no coincidence it is 6 of the 24 guys who currently have Protected Industrial Action bans on overtime.

airsupport
9th Dec 2010, 00:11
Thanks again for the news on this situation, PLEASE keep it coming when you have any further news, I am sure everyone here is as disgusted as I am by this. :mad:

Sadly it probably will not help, but I just sent an email to CASA Licencing and CASA Complaints asking why CASA is NOT supporting LAMEs Licenced by them who are just doing what they are supposed to do. :ugh:

Not expecting an answer, but you never know. :rolleyes:

Bigdog01
9th Dec 2010, 13:31
I am only new here but have been in aviation for over 35 years. It was once an awesome career, the pay was good, the conditions excellent. The managers started on the floor and worked up, grew with the airline. Knew what happened at each level, these days you have the over educated uni grad chasing the dollar, trim it here trim it there, why do we have to stock all these spares. Why do we need all these people, buy more aircraft, shift more people, make more money, bigger bonus for me.

From what I know of Qantaslink they have stood down approx 1/4 of their licensed engineers. Does this not add undue pressure on the remaining ? Won't this effect their ability to perform normal duties. From what has been posted so far these guys are losing money from their wages months after the fact. Don't management raise issues with performance immediately or do they have to think about it for awhile. This would appear to be the non productive area.

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 00:31
Well I did make email contact with numerous people at CASA, and received quiet a few replies.

Odd thing was though every reply I got, including one from the CEO of CASA, mentioned the industrial trouble at Sunstate (which I didn't ask about), but none of them addressed my safety concerns. :ugh:

I was also advised not to believe anything I see here on PPRuNe. :rolleyes:

Anyway I got back to the CEO and asked what I thought was a simple thing, IF there are NO safety concerns his assurance that there wasn't any, and he declined. :uhoh:

This fact alone makes me feel, as would anyone else I think, that there is indeed something to hide.

Does anyone here have any actual first hand knowledge of these safety breaches, IF in fact they exist? :confused:

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Dec 2010, 07:29
AS - I am very alarmed that you have written to CASA about a safety concern and they just reply to say it is an Industrial issue. I would like to review the corro if possible because it sounds a bit fishy. Please email me at [email protected] and I will send you some more detailed info as well.

cheers
Steve P

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 08:00
I am very alarmed that you have written to CASA about a safety concern
I am very alarmed,,,, WHY????

ozbiggles
10th Dec 2010, 08:04
a perfect example of a half a selective quote there

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 08:14
Well ok, Please explain:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Safety Concerns
10th Dec 2010, 08:18
arnold are you sent here to try our patience. Really, read both the quotes below and work it out for yourself:

I am very alarmed that you have written to CASA about a safety concern

or

I am very alarmed that you have written to CASA about a safety concern and they just reply to say it is an Industrial issue

just a little bit of difference in the context

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 08:26
Well ok I am 61 years old and have been a union member since I was 15, and clearly I am stupid, Please use your superior interlect to explain to me

Jethro Gibbs
10th Dec 2010, 08:29
You have paid the ALAEA for 46 years I would ask why ?

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 08:33
When at any stage did I say that I had been a member of the ALAEA for that length of time?? Talk about selective quotations:ugh:

ampclamp
10th Dec 2010, 08:41
That was an assumption not selective quotation.:8

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 08:46
AS - I am very alarmed that you have written to CASA about a safety concern and they just reply to say it is an Industrial issue. I would like to review the corro if possible because it sounds a bit fishy. Please email me at and I will send you some more detailed info as well.

cheers
Steve P

That was what concerned me too, I asked specifically about safety concerns at Sunstate, and in every email I received, from 3 different people at CASA, they pointed out that they do not get involved in industrial matters, yet none of them would discuss safety. :ugh:

I don't really want to get further involved, especially in union/industrial business, however the CASA CEO said I was at liberty to seek more information elsewhere, so I guess it would be okay. :confused:

Your email is NOT visible on this thread though, could you PM it to me and I will send you all the emails from CASA.

Safety Concerns
10th Dec 2010, 08:47
arnold have you got it yet

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:06
arnold have you got it yet
No
Tsk tsk. Are you a current ALAEA member Arnold E ?? If not, perhaps you should seek information or advice from another source, ALAEA Fed Sec is fairly busy providing support and advice to members currently..
No I am not a current member of that particular union, but maybe I should ask for my contribution to the fund for the LAMES back if that is your attitude.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:13
Cactusjack

Pease Bro
Get a bit excited with the young ones sometimes

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 09:15
Okay people, settle down.

I am NOT a current Member of the ALAEA either, but like many others am just trying to help out as much as I can.

PEACE............... :ok::ok::ok:

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:28
Ok, so what is the latest
I am still a supporter:ok:

buttmonkey1
10th Dec 2010, 09:30
Couldn't agree more big dog, then your question...

From what I know of Qantaslink they have stood down approx 1/4 of their licensed engineers. Does this not add undue pressure on the remaining ? Won't this effect their ability to perform normal duties.

From what i've seen and heard, the Sunstate night work was being c/o by scabs, protected by security guards, lmfao.
Then those lames remaining can keep the ramp operating.
If this is the case, scabs can run up big bills and make heaps of stuffups.

Hoping you get your backpay entitlements, re-imburse all docked pay, and get rid of the manager/s pulling the strings in this debacle.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:36
Who are supporting the scabs:confused::confused:

buttmonkey1
10th Dec 2010, 09:42
Note to airsupport,
I can see fedsec's email addy just fine.
Check your browser settings or protection levels,
keep up the good work.

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 09:49
Note to airsupport,
I can see fedsec's email addy just fine.
Check your browser settings or protection levels,
keep up the good work.

Thank you. :ok:

He has been in touch now via PM, and he has all the emails he wanted. :ok:

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 10:00
Seems the facts are spreading Worldwide, just our CASA that doesn't know. :ugh:

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

AEI Press Release
Australian Aviation Safety Suffers Further Setback
Hoofddorp, Netherlands 07 Dec 2010

AEI (Aircraft Engineers International) is becoming extremely concerned about the safety image being projected within the Qantas group. In a quite unprecedented action, a Qantaslink airline (Sunstate), has deducted pay from over 20 Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers salaries.

AEI believe this decision was taken after their professional judgement determined aircraft defects needed to be corrected before further flight in order to maintain required levels of airworthiness and safety. Qantas has claimed that the reason for deducting the pay was unprotected industrial action, but AEI disputes this.

AEI offers its unconditional support to the engineers concerned, who despite incredible commercial pressure ensured that passenger interests were protected and safety remained paramount.

AEI General Secretary Fred Bruggeman commented, "Punitive action taken against aviation safety professionals raising legitimate safety issues cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Safety may suffer as a result of this
action and this sorry episode will surely cause untold damage to both the Qantas group and the travelling public's perception of air safety."

AEI has been warning for some time that airline claims of "safety being paramount" is all too often nothing more than an empty marketing slogan. It is interesting that the Qantas Group Business Practices document (published
on the Qantas website) commits the group to conducting business to the "highest levels of ethics and integrity" whilst insisting upon the highest standards including safety standards from its employees. In fact page seven
claims that Qantas are committed to "providing a workplace that is free from discrimination, harassment and bullying."

Mr Bruggeman continued, "The evidence published in this case is both clear and shocking. It highlights an incredible level of arrogance within management circles and raises genuine concerns about the sincerity of the Qantas group to adhere to their own procedures and ensure that safety, rather than profit, remains paramount. AEI calls on the Qantas Chief Executive Officer, Alan Joyce to intervene personally and bring what AEI believes to be intimidation of safety professionals to an immediate end."

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

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 10:05
In a quite unprecedented action, a Qantaslink airline (Sunstate), has deducted pay from over 20 Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers salaries.


20, are you kidding??? I thought that only 6 LAMES were involved. What the hell is going on here???

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 10:08
Not sure personally, but as I understand it 6 are suspended from work, and another 20 or 20 including them are losing pay. :mad:

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 10:15
and another 20 or 20 including them are losing pay.

As I have said earlier, I dont understand. How come you blokes are still in there working??
I know I am old school, but please explain?
Yes, I know I am stupid!

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Dec 2010, 10:15
Around 20 blokes have been docked wages for what the company says is illegal industrial activity. Stuff like taking 10 minutes to get out to an aircraft after you start work or taking too long to finish a check (because you found defects). The dockings were up to 28 hours pay.

The other issue is 6 blokes who are still sttod down subject to a disciplinary investigation because they wrote up snags on cockpit doors.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 10:22
ALAEA Fed Sec
Mate, I still dont understand, please PM me with an explanation. These guys are loosing money for being at work???? I am lost for words, I know I am an old fart who knows nothing, but hey, Please explain:confused:

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 10:26
As I have said earlier, I dont understand. How come you blokes are still in there working??
I know I am old school, but please explain?

Actually I also wonder that, maybe because I am even older than you. ;)

Why are they still putting up with this shocking treatment? :confused:

Maybe the ALAEA Fed Sec could explain please.

buttmonkey1
10th Dec 2010, 10:32
If their protected action is for overtime bans, well, that's it.
stopping work because scabs are working over in the shed
would leave them unprotected, and all that entails.:ouch:

What the great battle with the last QF lame eba proved was the
lames need to be extra vigilent, as management was preying
one would slip up and give some excuse for a nasty rodgering.

Even so, many QF lames were docked pay, left with letters on their files
and worse. The scabs were ignored, and most achieved nothing besides
picking up a few hundred thousand bucks for their dodgy efforts, then
crawled back into the woodwork.

Isamu Pahoa
10th Dec 2010, 10:42
I am new to the forum..foregive me for being a little naive...I thought the engineers that were stood down were from Qantaslink. The brand of Sunstate Airlines disappeared years ago, but I see it is back.:hmm:

I am a young AME and always thought that Qlink would be a great place to try and get a job one day. From what I am reading I would be better off going elsewhwere!!:confused:

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 10:43
Ok, there is obviously a lot I dont understand about the modern IR
Please explain!!
The first time I walked out the door was when I was 17, (1967) We were the first apprentices in Australia (happened in SA)to walk, ( look that up)
Anyway, all that is not relavent to today, So whats happening???

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 10:46
Ok, there is obviously a lot I dont understand about the modern IR
Please explain!!

You are not alone in that, I don't either. :{

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Dec 2010, 10:46
Its got to do with the workplace laws and hangovers from Johnnies workchoices. To explain in simple terms.

You can only take Industrial Action when your employment contract has expired. You need to have a ballot and write to the company and tell them what you are doing. We have done this and have some overtime bans on.

You can't just stop work whenever you like. If you do, you lose a minumum of 4 hours pay even if you stop work for 30 minutes. You also lose pay if the company tells you to do something and you don't do it as you normally would.

The company claim that the blokes have been directed to start at 0515. They claim that they didn't get to the aircraft until 0525. They have declared that this is not normal (even though it is). Docked 4 hours.

The company have asked blokes to do an overnight check. They estimated that it would take for example 100 man hours including rectification. It took much longer because an engine oil leak into the compressor was noted (sound like another aircraft we have all heard about) that led to an engine change. All employees (union ones) rostered on, docked 4 hours pay each day plane was there even if they didn't work the aircraft.

Can we just stop working and say up yours? You bet we can. Do the company want us to do that? You bet they do. Then they can sack them all and offer jobs back to the select few and make sure the others never work in our industry again. The company are being as nasty as they possibly can hoping that our blokes do something stupid. They won't. Just happy to chip away with some overtime restrictions for now. As a wise man once said "Sit by the banks of the river long enough and eventually the dead bodies of your enemies will come floating by".

The blokes don't want more money, just the same offerings as their Eastern couterparts.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 10:47
BOLLOCKS
I am going to say what I think.
I think you blokes are week!!

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 10:52
the engineers that were stood down were from Qantaslink. The brand of Sunstate Airlines disappeared years ago, but I see it is back.

I think you will find it is because Qantas do NOT want their name involved in this disgusting business, even though it IS Qantas causing all the trouble. :mad:

Even CASA when I contacted them went to great lengths to explain to me that it was NOT Qantas. :rolleyes:

buttmonkey1
10th Dec 2010, 10:53
Hmm, troll alert.

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 11:00
The company claim that the blokes have been directed to start at 0515. They claim that they didn't get to the aircraft until 0525. They have declared that this is not normal (even though it is). Docked 4 hours.

I am glad this rubbish wasn't in for the 40 years I was in the Industry. :mad:

I would owe a lot of Companies a LOT of money. :rolleyes:

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Dec 2010, 11:01
BOLLOCKS
I am going to say what I think.
I think you blokes are week!!




I don't reckon too many people think the ALAEA and its members these days are weak. If our actions were playing out in the mid 70's it may seem a little tame. Post 89 the laws changed rapidly. By 96, Howard had made it extremely company friendly.

We have to play our hand smartly these days.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 11:02
You can't just stop work whenever you like.It was illegal back in 67, but we did it and won. If you want the details PM me

Isamu Pahoa
10th Dec 2010, 11:13
Funny, you need to apply to Qantas HR for a job. They work in a Qantas Hangar and have red rats on there tails. Sure looks like Qantas. So they take the money from customers at a Qantas premium then want it run like a small reginal/GA buisiness, then if you step out of line they will use the full force of Qantas IR to crucify the poor engineer. Awsome, great place to work. Hope it dosen't catch on in other businesses.:mad:

I can't afford it, but I will throw some money in the fund as well. Wish them all the best.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 11:15
I don't reckon too many people think the ALAEA and its members these days are weakYour not serious are you? you have blokes losing 4 hrs pay for losing 10 mins work??
Well I'll say it, I do

Bigdog01
10th Dec 2010, 11:46
It seems Fair work Australia is not really that. I got an item off ninemsn the other day where a paper mill where going to fine workers $6000.00 each for not volunteering to work Christmas day ( unprotected industrial action). The pay rate for the day was $128 per hour, obviously the money is not the attraction but time with the family is.
Here I am having worked many Christmas's for a damn lot less because it is an accepted part of the aviation industry. It is this sort of repercussions which are probably keeping the remaining guys at Qantaslink turning up for work on a daily basis and ensuring they can feed their families. The possible loss of 4 hours pay is way less than what fines could be imposed.

Safety Concerns
10th Dec 2010, 11:47
arnold you just don't get anything do you.

We have to play our hand smartly these days

the laws have changed quite dramatically over the years and the fed sec is spot on with the above comment. You need to out smart today.

Instead of pm your 67 stuff why don't you post it here so we can all explain why it will no longer work.

Armchair amateurs do just as much damage as the airlines. You haven#t kept up to date with the law, you don't even grasp a basic comment on context yet you know how to undermine Qantas management playing political games.

Come on, don't make me laugh.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 11:57
Armchair amateursArmchair amateurs??Armchair amateurs are you mad?? Armchair??? Didn't you read what I said?? I was there mate! I was the one who walked out the gate, despite the fact it was illegal.
PILLOCK
Despite all of that, I support the Q link engineers, both in finance and industrially

Safety Concerns
10th Dec 2010, 12:06
times have changed and it ain't 67 any more.

Can't you read. If the guys don't watch their backs they are out of work. The law doesn't support getting them their jobs back.

You need to get a bit more street wise as to whats going on in the industry today, it aint a nice place to be and get it wrong tactically its all over.

I totally support the guys, the ALAEA position and efforts on this, and with patience from all including armchair observers, they will win through.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 12:12
from all including armchair observers,
Now I know you are are complete Pillock!
I am still very much in the industry:ugh:

Safety Concerns
10th Dec 2010, 12:21
all you have been doing is highlighting your own shortcomings since your first post here.

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Dec 2010, 16:59
The TWU walked off the job for a few hours a year ago because they had to work alongside contractors who did not have the appropriate security checks. Now, 9 of their officials are getting sued for $4.5 Million for damages.

Arnold it is not 1967. It doesn't really matter how you did it before I was even born. Our union would be bankrupt with one illegal walk off. Game over.

If you don't understand this, read it again. If you don't understand it after that, ask one of your kids to explain it.

airsupport
10th Dec 2010, 18:56
Yes, things have certainly changed, and as I said before I do not know or understand the current laws and regulations. :confused:

I guess I was lucky, all the years I spent in the Industry I never actually went on strike.

Was involved in some bans etc like to get confirmed first class travel on duty, but not actual strikes.

Still remember fondly back in the 1960s when I was still an Apprentice, all the LAMEs went on strike, we wanted to as well but weren't allowed to strike by law.

I think it was before the ALAEA even existed.

The Company had all the Staff Enginners working the line (at Essendon at the time), all these Type Specialists and other Engineers normally in an office, and we Apprentices had to not only help them but show them most of the jobs, they didn't even know how to do basic stuff like changing bulkheads (seat config). :rolleyes:

Anyway enough of memories, and a bit of I thought needed light relief, back to the topic. :ok:

airsupport
11th Dec 2010, 23:00
Funny, you need to apply to Qantas HR for a job. They work in a Qantas Hangar and have red rats on there tails. Sure looks like Qantas. So they take the money from customers at a Qantas premium then want it run like a small reginal/GA buisiness, then if you step out of line they will use the full force of Qantas IR to crucify the poor engineer.

Yes, so it would seem, major part of Qantas when it suits them, but then nothing remotely to do with Qantas when it suits them. :ugh:

The communications I had from CASA went to great lengths to point out that they are separate from Qantas altogether as far as CASA are concerned. :rolleyes:

neville_nobody
11th Dec 2010, 23:35
Yes, so it would seem, major part of Qantas when it suits them, but then nothing remotely to do with Qantas when it suits them

Same as Jetstar they talk it up about being a separate entity but as soon as they have a incident suddenly Jetstar is a 'QANTAS group airline':rolleyes:

LAME2
12th Dec 2010, 04:28
Airsupport, probably find Qantaslink/Sunstate/Southern/Eastern have their own AOC and CAR30, either individually or as a "group". So from CASA's perspectve they are seperate from QANTAS Airlines. If the administratiive functions are carried out by QANTAS Head Office, CASA is not involved and doesn't care. However, most readers of tis forum would probably agree, it is a narrow viewpoint from CASA that probably suits their purposes of keeping as low a profile as they can, lest they be found wanting or inadequate.

Just my thought.

Arnold E
12th Dec 2010, 07:37
If you don't understand this, read it again.Fed sec, maybe it is you who doesn't understand. Look at what I have said, in 67 it was still illegal, I.E. against the law. All sorts of pain and pestilence was said to be wrought upon us for doing what we were doing, our shop steward was said to be going to jail, and we would all have our apprenticeships cancelled,but we won, and nothing happened. Now you might ask why that was, well, we were right! It was a very similar situation to this situation, we were literally having money stolen from us by the management (well one manager).If you truly believe you are right, you must win. Please accept that I am not against these guys, I support them 100%.
Google Ark Tribe and read, then tell me that justice will not prevail

Skynews
12th Dec 2010, 09:16
Arnold, it won't work today.
The workers mentality is not one of unity, as soon as the blow torch is directed at n individual their resolve tends to disappear.

Not so much a criticism, more an observation.

I like most of my colleagues, but I don't trust they would risk much to support me or any industrial cause.

I am speaking from a pilots perspective. All you need to observe is pilots racing to pay for their own endorsement to beat a more experienced and probably talented pilot to a job.

Like a cancer it is a culture that has develped over many years. The younger less experienced take on jobs that used to be occupied by the experienced and respected. This creates an atmosphere where you never feel 100% secure. The employers love it.

In today's IR environment I think fed sec is doing all he can and deserves our support. Your support and understanding under these times can only help

Worrals in the wilds
12th Dec 2010, 11:00
Times change,and not usually for the better.

Back in my OHMS days I went on strike a few years ago, it was protected industrial action and perfectly legal but we still had union members that not only turned up to work but went out of their way to work in different areas from their usual ones and minimise the disruption. Scabs all of them, but what can you do? You're not allowed to take them out back anymore.

Arnold, good for you guys for beating the system, but I've never worked with a group I'd trust enough to take the punt. Sad but true, in my experience these days there's always someone who'll sell you out, sometimes the person you least expect. Fortunately justice prevailed for you because you all stood together (and that does you all credit) but these days it's pirates ahoy and pirates' rules.

Good luck Fed Sec, all the best to the guys. It's a pity to see what was once a great company (Sunstate) devolve to this level of mudslinging and mistrust.

Bigdog01
12th Dec 2010, 21:16
Qantaslink is a shelf company with Sunstate ( it's own AOC at the moment), Eastern ( it's own AOC). Southern I believe has ceased to exist. National Jet/ Cobham also operate under the Qantaslink banner but is a separate entity.

It would seem AJ the mayor of Qantas town is always very pleased to announce the virtues of Jetstar in making money ( wasn't he brought in to set this up). However it comes under the heading of subsidiary airlines in the group profit document along with the regional's. I bet I know where the majority of that money is coming from and it's not the orange plague.

Although they do have one distinct advantage - they can cancel flights and put the cheap seats on a red tail ( with full service) and get the people where they want to go.

ALAEA Fed Sec
13th Dec 2010, 01:41
Understood Arnold. I know what you guys did in the early days led to the reasonable wages we have today. Tactically a full walk off just doesn't suit. Sunstate would just sack all the guys and never give them their jobs back. They would keep running the place for 12 months with the 2 managers, 3 non members and the AMEs/TAs.

You've expressed your view which is fine. We'll fight this best we can and come out on top in the end.

cheers
Steve

Kangaroo Court
16th Dec 2010, 15:29
'74

They're fighting the good fight!

Take five
17th Dec 2010, 22:19
As you know, accountability for the Qantas Air Operator’s Certification (AOC) recently transferred from Alan Joyce to me.

History has repeatedly shown us that disasters are often characterised by a series of small failings that have worked together to breach our defences. The requirements imposed by CASA, other regulators and equipment manufacturers are there for good reason, so it is very important that we treat them seriously at all times. They improve our defences against failure or error. Treating them seriously means many things, including that compliance is understood, that it occurs appropriately, and that it is recorded and reported properly.

Recently our aviation safety regulator, CASA, has signalled that it will be taking a much harder line with those airlines and airline employees who deviate from standard operating procedures and processes. In this climate, it is vitally important that we are all aware of and act on our regulatory responsibilities and obligations. Our safety management system is dependent on an open reporting culture and I strongly encourage this. It is everyone’s responsibility to report failings and errors because by identifying them and fixing them, we prevent reoccurrence. We all should be confident that we are able to raise concerns without fear of retribution and we have well-defined reporting mechanisms available for that purpose. However should anyone feel they are being actively frustrated from raising issues through the regular channels or is fearful of any adverse repercussions, our Whistle Blower policy is available and can assist with protecting an employee’s identity. Our strategy declares that “safety is our first priority” and our organisational behaviours underpinning that strategy require that “everyone demonstrates and drives a genuine commitment to safety”. As the Qantas AOC post holder I am fully committed to ensuring we maintain the world’s best safety practices at Qantas. We have built up a strong safety reputation and record over our 90 years of operations. Let’s ensure that something we have all worked so hard to achieve continues well into the future.

Lyell Strambi Group Executive Qantas Airlines Operations

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the reason these guys lost pay and were harassed was because they dared to voice a safety concern about cockpit doors.
It seems the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Arnold E
17th Dec 2010, 22:25
It seems the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
I would think that, indeed, the right hand knows exactly what the left hand is doing, and the reason for doing it.:sad:

ALAEA Fed Sec
17th Dec 2010, 22:50
What this mob do and what they say are 2 completely different things.

Anyone done human factors training of late?

airsupport
17th Dec 2010, 23:29
Our safety management system is dependent on an open reporting culture and I strongly encourage this. It is everyone’s responsibility to report failings and errors because by identifying them and fixing them, we prevent reoccurrence. We all should be confident that we are able to raise concerns without fear of retribution

GREAT.............. :ok:

So why is it that these LAMEs that were doing just that have been crucified? :mad::mad::mad:

gobbledock
18th Dec 2010, 00:40
As you know, accountability for the Qantas Air Operator’s Certification (AOC) recently transferred from Alan Joyce to me.
Nice try.
Alan can transfer the AOC accountability, but he can't transfer overall accountability for the airline. If they put one into the side of the mountain, the CEO is accountable.


Our safety management system is dependent on an open reporting culture and I strongly encourage this. It is everyone’s responsibility to report failings and errors because by identifying them and fixing them, we prevent reoccurrence. We all should be confident that we are able to raise concerns without fear of retribution

This is more of a concern. Just Culture sits within the SMS, which is now legislation, so by doing what they have done to the Sunstate engineers they are in effect not complying with legislation. Not good.
It shows that perhaps the senior people actually do not understand what their obligations are or understand some aspects of legislation. That is concerning......

airsupport
18th Dec 2010, 00:52
The whole situation is VERY concerning. :mad:

Is there any more news yet Steve? :confused:

Hopefully positive. :rolleyes:

ALAEA Fed Sec
18th Dec 2010, 02:27
Most positive is the level of the fighting fund. Up around 20k.

We had our 4 yearly conference this week and John Mc from CASA came along for a cuppla days. He is well briefed now of the situation and appeared to agree that there is something wrong going on up there.

airsupport
18th Dec 2010, 02:48
Excellent news on both those points. :ok:

No news yet though as regards the industrial action, stand downs etc? :confused:

b55
18th Dec 2010, 05:44
Several current Sunstate line LAMES now voting with their feet and taking jobs elsewhere with better pay and conditions than Qlink.

newsensation
18th Dec 2010, 06:46
Just like the Pilots...:ugh:

LAME2
18th Dec 2010, 09:27
I wish them all the best and I hope they find some sense of stability with an employer that appreciates them. QANTASLINK Management in my opinion does not deserve the decent people they currently employ. Best wishes for the festive season to all QANTASLINK employees going through this trying time. Humbugs to the Management.

BrissySparkyCoit
18th Dec 2010, 11:12
...QANTASLINK Management in my opinion does not deserve the decent people they currently employ.

Unfortunately, if the workforce decides to leave then I think Qantaslink have won!

This is what they want. The 4 hours docking and stand down of the engineers will not stand up in court and they know it. They know that in the end, the engineers will be found innocent of conducting illegal industrial action and Qantaslink will have to re-imburse them for lost wages.

The whole basis for what they are doing, is to wear down the LAMEs in question (ie, the buggery campaign), to the point where they give up.

I think I finally may see some reason in what Arnold E says.

If it means a few engineers who will not bend over leave, all the better. I'd bet they have their fingers crossed that as many as possible walk, leaving the section in a situation where it no longer viable to operate.

They can then go on to the media whining about how LAME's are lazy, don't want to work and how they need to outsorce or bring in contractors to carry out the work.

Qantaslink 1, Employees 0. :ugh:

600ft-lb
18th Dec 2010, 13:29
Until it gets to the point where what the pay they're offering (ie quite low by comparison to other airlines and bigger brother) just won't get the manpower required to do the work. In which case the Qantas brand loses.

Is it a product of the graduates of our universities today that cause management to see employees as a necessary evil who are overpaid, underworked and at every turn are trying to get one up ?

Or do those personality types just attract like minded management types that see employees as scum ?

I mean seriously, is engagement ever really possible while the apparent mindset which is so pervasive in this organisation is the one to treat the people who make the airline work with complete disdain at every turn, instantly dismissive at every EBA negotiation.

New faces and all inhabit the upper ranks but the man who advised the company on spending $100+million to 'break' the LAME's and their wage claim of $5million or so is still 'advising' Qantas to say no to everything once again.

I would be happy for an inflation adjusted/industry comparison wage. No I'm not a level 14, try less then half that. But I'm too expensive. I wonder how Virgin and Jetstar can afford it.

Bring on the PIA.

The masked goatrider
22nd Dec 2010, 02:15
Speaking to my friends from ALAEA an announcement from Sunstate is pending some time this week.

As a long time member of the ALAEA and supporter of the current Exec it should be made clear up front here.

If any, and I mean any action is taken against our Sunstate friends because they are -

1. reporting defects as every Lame should; or
2. have in place legal overtime limitations to prevent the introduction of a selective training bond; or
3. management want to close them down or restructure to get rid of the problem.

The Qantas LAMEs will support them and $145M will not get you far. Steve tells me the you tube video is ready to go.

airsupport
22nd Dec 2010, 04:46
What is the latest Steve?

ALAEA Fed Sec
22nd Dec 2010, 19:07
Hey all,

Still the 6 are stood down at home unsure on what management have in store for them. Its been about 2 months now which is just a farce considering their own policy says that investigations are to be conducted in a timely manner.

cheers
Steve

LAME2
22nd Dec 2010, 19:39
What this mob do and what they say are 2 completely different things


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dogcharlietree
22nd Dec 2010, 21:53
So, next time I am in the F/D checking the oxy pressure (as per the transit chk) and I smell an electrical arcing smell and see the window heat light flickering, I would be going out on a limb by investigation the possibility of a loose power terminal connection on the windscreen with a possible cross threaded terminal screw etc.
I was once admonished for bringing to the company's attention that an engine fire extinguisher bottle was out of date. Told that it was not part of my pre-flight inspection. :sad: And that was about 20 years ago.

airsupport
22nd Dec 2010, 23:54
I was once admonished for bringing to the company's attention that an engine fire extinguisher bottle was out of date. Told that it was not part of my pre-flight inspection. And that was about 20 years ago.

IF this is what is happening now then it is just plain wrong. :mad:

I remember way back in the late 1970s or early 1980s I was doing a first flight of the day preflight inspection on a DC9.

While checking the main oxygen bottle pressure (as in the check) I noticed that the bottle itself was way out of date (not on the check).

Was I admonished, NO, in fact the Company (Ansett) were grateful as they then did a spot check on ALL our DC9s and found several others also out of date.

That is how it is supposed to work, certainly used to, and I am truly disgusted at what (apparently) goes on now. :mad:

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 07:53
Hey all,

Still the 6 are stood down at home unsure on what management have in store for them. Its been about 2 months now which is just a farce considering their own policy says that investigations are to be conducted in a timely manner.

cheers
Steve

Well, you have done really well then, haven't you.:sad:

Romulus
23rd Dec 2010, 08:13
Well, you have done really well then, haven't you.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Actually yes he has.

When we set up the original systems at JHAS we didn't deal with SP, we dealt with PC and, interestingly enough, Sharon Burrow herself as head of the ACTU (I even tipped Gillard snotting KRudd way back then - come to think of it she owes me a nice bottle of red for that one, a Penfold 707 given that was the currency of putting money where mouth is between me and AH - but that's another story). Whilst we didn't agree on certain things it must be said we respected both the ACTU and ALAEA approach to helping put a system in place that gave JHAS a fighting chance to make it.

As has been mentioned in the other JHAS thread the guys gave us a lot of slack to try and make it. Hopefully people on both sides of the fence realise that is the way that things need to happen to keep aircraft maintenance in Aus and also what is good for the future of Aus airlines. Short termism makes one side or the other look good in the short term but has the potential to be disastrous for both longer term.

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 08:20
Please explain???

Safety Concerns
23rd Dec 2010, 08:45
he means you are not informed and out of touch.

Therefore your comments do not help.

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 08:47
Hmmm, Ok tell me how I can become informed, and in touch??

Safety Concerns
23rd Dec 2010, 09:16
look arnold I accept that you are genuine but you have admitted in a previous post that you are not an ALAEA member and you don't work for sunstate.

So how can you possibly judge whether ALAEA are doing a good job or not?

This is 2010 not 1967. There have been significant law changes since then and almost all, if not all, have been to the detriment of unions and their powers.

Therefore it is a much different game now where put simply brute force no longer works. Today one needs to outwit and outsmart. Play it tactically.

That takes patience and at times very much a silent operation. If you wish to become more informed then join ALAEA and interact with your union.

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 09:38
I wish to god I had never mentioned 1967, that was the first time, when I was an apprentice, but please dont believe that I walked out the door for frivolous reasons. I have even supported an employer when I believe he is in the right. (and that is very recently) But I do believe that unless you are prepared to stand up and be counted, you will lose. NOTE: That for all the times I have walked out the door, I have never lost 60 day's pay TOTAL. FACT. IF you are right you cant lose.

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 10:06
As has been mentioned in the other JHAS thread the guys gave us a lot of slack to try and make it.What do you mean by that exactly.:confused:

And what did the guys get for cutting you the slack????

newsensation
23rd Dec 2010, 19:53
Australain aviation regulatory reform was likely first discussed !!!!!
I think that was the year before....

airsupport
23rd Dec 2010, 20:34
I wish to god I had never mentioned 1967, that was the first time, when I was an apprentice, but please dont believe that I walked out the door for frivolous reasons.

Okay, now you have me confused. :confused:

I was an Apprentice too, from 1963 until 1967, and yes the then LAMEs went on strike in 1967 and we Apprentices wanted to support them, however we were advised that as Apprentices were could NOT strike, it was illegal for Apprentices to strike. :confused:

How did you do it??? :confused:

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 21:47
we were advised that as Apprentices were could NOT strike, it was illegal for Apprentices to strike. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

That's correct, it was illegal and probably still is. However, there were a fair few of us, around 40 from memory, and when our illegal action was presented to the Apprentice Commission,(dont know if such a body still exists) an investigation was started and the truth came out. No way was the Commission going to the cancel 40 apprenticeships.

Just as an aside. I was a second year at the time and it is interesting to note that not one of the fifth years joined us outside.

airsupport
23rd Dec 2010, 22:00
Well as I said we wanted to support the LAMEs. but were prevented from doing so.

I am also sure that NONE of our Apprentices went out because of these threats.

Maybe you were with Qantas or someone else in NSW?

In Victoria (with Ansett) they were very strict about it, the Apprentice Authority and Ansett.

Also the then LAMEs told us we should NOT to get involved, and they promised to look after us as well, but they didn't of course. :{

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 22:17
Well ok I hear you, everybody here is telling me what you cant do,
So tell me what you can do.
And..... What is happening about the wages unlawfully removed from people's pay packet?

airtags
23rd Dec 2010, 22:18
notwithstanding the flow of the apprentice debate, the fact that this shameful episode still remains unresolved is in itself a perversion of the principles of equitable justice.

AT :E

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Dec 2010, 23:03
Well ok I hear you, everybody here is telling me what you cant do,
So tell me what you can do.


I would but you seem to have an inability to read or comprehend what is presented. You like to attack my union with crap like this.

Well, you have done really well then, haven't you.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

NOTE: That for all the times I have walked out the door, I have never lost 60 day's pay TOTAL.

If you had been reading this (not just selective pieces) you would have noted that the 6 that are stood down are not losing pay. They will be enjoying Christmas with their famalies whilst the managers work in their place.

Arnold E
23rd Dec 2010, 23:16
Well ok,fair point about the done well comment, but I am NOT attacking yours or any other union, I am actually a union supporter.
You are correct I did miss the important point of the guys still getting paid, that being the case, then well done, and infact that changes things considerably.

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Dec 2010, 23:57
Thnx for being reasonable in response. Just in brief -

6 are stood down on pay for snagging cockpit doors.

20 (which includes the six) were docked 4-28 hours pay for working on aircraft and not getting them out in the estimated time.

What can we do? Currently have on overtime bans and stopping for 4 hours on the 25th. Watching managers cut every corner in the book and reporting every breach to CASA. Supporting our mates to make sure they can still feed their families whilst being docked. We have initiated action under the General Protections Laws under the Fair Work Act for the 6. Some other things behind the scenes that are best left unsaid.

cheers

airsupport
24th Dec 2010, 00:01
the 6 that are stood down are not losing pay

Steve,

I didn't realise that either.

I thought they were not being paid at all.

So the only pay being lost is the ones that ARE working, but (in Sunstate/Qantas's opinion) are taking too long to start work and complete tasks etc?

The situation, though NOT as bad as I thought, needs to be resolved soon.

PLEASE continue to provide any news about this disgusting business.

Apologies to those that don't like to hear about Apprentices. :rolleyes:

airsupport
24th Dec 2010, 00:03
There were 2 other replies why I was slowly typing that. ;)

L Riding hood
26th Dec 2010, 10:20
Long time reader first time writer from what I gather is going on with this predicament With Qantas / link is that Qantas is testing how far they can push little brother and get away with dirty tactic and to see how the union will deal with each curve ball they through and test the legal system aka fair work Australia, if Q can get away with prothetic alligations and can stand engineers down and dock wagers from engineers for simply doing there jobs with very little evident and that CASA simple do not wish to get involved and use the excuse that they are currently in negations it sounds very much like a bad day for the safety of aviation in Australia. I believe if this goes south it will certainly filter through to the rest of the aviation world in oz and if this is the case I would not like to work in the current environment and would be better of digging holes
I don’t know how managers can brake CASA regs and not be made examples off these people are meant to be in charge and be leading by example how can there be two different rules within the same company? One for engineers and pilots who do there best and rase safety issues be disciplined and managers that go out of there way to brake not only company policy but the aviations regulators laws and get away with it, something smells very bad in Q town, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif
Please correct me if I am wrong

1746
26th Dec 2010, 21:37
LRRH - you got it!

Bigdog01
29th Dec 2010, 00:19
It would seem that in AJ's eyes the only people who he can't control are the engineer's.
Probably because way back you employed people who could think for themselves and make decisions, without running to management going " look what I did"
Both groups of Qlink flight attendants (sunstate & eastern) have knocked back their EA's - but no buggery happened there.
Eastern pilot's new EA I believe got knocked back too - true or false.
engineer's in Tamworth knocked back their EA - no buggery there yet either.

Are they really that scared of the engineer's or is that we generally have a brain and use it on a regular basis to make decisions without having to form a committee and waiting 3 months to get a result, if ever !

Without the shift penalties the QLink wages for a fully licensed engineer is crap $61k :\ QL managers (word used loosely) seem to feel that holding a license for 5 mins is as good as having held one for 5 years or longer.

Too all who support - Thank you.
May the new year be better than the last.

Isamu Pahoa
29th Dec 2010, 02:08
Without the shift penalties the QLink wages for a fully licensed engineer is crap $61k http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif


Hey Bigdog01, $61k is as you say, crap money (more money as an AME contracting by far). You guys used to have around 4 aircraft in the shed every night. Pull them appart then have them back on line the next day for the first departures. From here it is quite obvious the company is missing the main point. They were extremely lucky to have you guys doing this for them. If fact how did they get you guys to agree to it in the first place? I have known a few blokes who work there over the years and they reckon that all the work was done fairly early and you could get away at a reasable time. But that was back in the Shorts days. The Sydney guys work a rotating shift to give them a break from the nights, how come you guys did not do the same?

What is the local management doing? Their pride and joy in Brisbane is being ripped appart at the seams. Surely they are accountable for this!! It is a disaster for QLink, then paying third party companies huge sums to do what you guys did night after night.

No wonder guys are leaving. Are they ever going to attract people back? Maybe if the big Q realizes that the lower and middle managers have completely let down the Company, workers and paying passengers. Big chang is required. Word is spreading about the rubbish going down at QLink. I reckon the Mud will stick. :ouch:

bubble.head
29th Dec 2010, 08:45
The Council knocked back the companys proposed *very generous, aka BS* EA. Voting of the pilot suggests that some action will be taken. :ok:

BrissySparkyCoit
29th Dec 2010, 11:31
Maybe if the big Q realizes that the lower and middle managers have completely let down the Company.....

What, like MH? Disappeared to state rail but has any of the damage been undone?

division1
29th Dec 2010, 15:44
none of these fine maintenance facilities deserve to be decimated
by a bunch of assclowns. they must be weeded out before any real
progress will be made.
the Sunstate situation is a glaring example of where the boss should
get turfed, imho.
to watch these pricks that blow in and out the door while destroying
the workplace is sickening. engine lines, heavy maint, every customer
that paid the bills. gone, gone, gone. makes you want to :yuk:.

L Riding hood
30th Dec 2010, 06:31
I agree Division 1 I had spoken to one of the lads and It sounds to me that this fight has been coming for a while the boys had been jack of being over work with excessive overnight check and maintenance as Isamu Pahoa stated and have also been feed up with the constant lying and poor conditions of facilities and equipment/lack of. There is only so much B/S a person can take.

There must be a fair bit of arse covering by these bottom feeding managers they should be taking responsibility for there mistakes instead of blame the engineers for all of there short comings, they must be desperate if they are going to the extent of disciplining engineers for doing what they are employed to do WTF

Bigdog1 is that for real 61k that really is crap especially for all the responsibility a LAME has in certifying for A/C

This company needs a massive overhaul of the managers it has become too much of an exclusive boy club

Any news on the poor buggers that have been stood down for doing a grate job for the safety of A/C ?

Bigdog01
30th Dec 2010, 08:27
Isamu Pahoa your statement is correct, the guys used to be able to get away when the work was done. However some would abuse the system and leave by deferring.
This only put pressure on next time. Why do it for the pittance - used to be a decent place to work, not perfect but OK.

Before to long you are there for too long to quit unless the next job really good !!
What is happening with the paddle pop 6 ? Gone really quiet ! Although they have taken paddle pop's off the inflight menu, even though door's ( which weren't broken or a risk) have been modified.

Sydney shift - Quote from manager " not while my ass points to the ground"

ALAEA Fed Sec
30th Dec 2010, 18:58
The six are still off work guys. At least they got Xmas off on full pay. It has been over two months now as qlink "investigate" their unlawful action of defecting aircraft because they found something wrong and reported it via the tech log.

You may ask how in a workforce of 24 Lames can you still operate with a quarter of them off work for 2 months. It is just an absolute farce out there. It works like this. You take your 15 staff off night shift every night and let one licensed manager do their job instead. The manager is a perfect LAME because he never, ever finds anything wrong with the aircraft. He signs out of category, defers serious defects such as cracks in engine components, replaces incorrect parts to pen defects off and orders unlicensed engineers to do what they are not qualified for.

It is all a trial for mainline to see what CASA will let them get away with.

airsupport
30th Dec 2010, 19:04
How on Earth do CASA let them get away with all these shocking things??? :mad::mad::mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec
30th Dec 2010, 19:53
Currently investigating numerous complaints. Already ordered some corrective action out there that including training for all staff (lames and managers). qlink wrote back and advised that the training would occur in october (from memory). They never did the training that was ordered by CASA.

Sunstate are in the poo for this but for some reason they are still operating.

airsupport
30th Dec 2010, 20:07
Okay, thanks, please continue to keep us advised of any news on this disgusting situation.

I just cannot believe that Australian safety standards and compliance have sunk so dangerously low. :mad:

As I said before, I was an Australian CASA Licenced LAME for some 40 years, worked all over the World with Australian registered aircraft, and even in places like Saigon and New York we had regular visits from CASA people to make sure we were complying with all Australian rules and regulations, yet now CASA can not, or will not, do anything about this disgusting business right here in Australia. :mad:

L Riding hood
30th Dec 2010, 22:11
Just an idea would it be worth raising these issues with local members of parliament? And see how the government respond/intervene on how CASA is currently doing about this disgraceful behaviour

Arnold E
30th Dec 2010, 22:19
I just cannot believe that Australian safety standards and compliance have sunk so dangerously low. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif
I'm with you and I'm glad I am nearing the end of my working life not just starting out, however, I have great concerns for my son who is LAME as well and has a long way to go.

Bigdog01
31st Dec 2010, 01:11
It would seem the current Gov couldn't give a damn. Is there any difference between the labour ( supposed to be for the worker) and the brotherhood of old boys looking after their mates ( shaft the worker).
Fair work aust is a good example of the pathetic attempt to right a wrong, take out 2 chapters to appease the unions - get the support but leave everything else.
As for CASA the toothless tigers - once again probably just trying to do things on the cheap. Pass the buck to the airlines (self regulate), then when it turns into a smoking hole in the ground come in all guns blazing - good media.
Why is the Q limiting EA's too 3% when everybody else needs to go a bit better to attract people. Do they really think that they are that good to work for at the coal face. Shiny bums seem to do alright especially in the bonus dept.
The big Q patting it self on the back recently - walk in my shoes program.
Managers coming down to work alongside the plebs - how many did you see in engineering, out in the cold, rain and way past bedtime at night - big fat ZERO.
I hope the "6" rejoin soon before it is too late.:ouch:

Common sense and fair play are a thing of the past !!!!!!!!

Arnold E
31st Dec 2010, 03:33
They never did the training that was ordered by CASA.
Has this,or is this being pursued by anybody?

The Kelpie
31st Dec 2010, 03:51
As for CASA the toothless tigers - once again probably just trying to do things on the cheap. Pass the buck to the airlines (self regulate), then when it turns into a smoking hole in the ground come in all guns blazing - good media.

I think that politically there are too many questions about the safety of Australian aviation in the public domain at the moment. I believe there is a genuine concern about public perception which may undermine public confidence. I wonder whether this view has been helped along by the airlines??

More to follow

Arnold E
31st Dec 2010, 06:54
I believe there is a genuine concern about public perception which may undermine public confidence. I wonder whether this view has been helped along by the airlines??

Can someone please explain all this to me, I confess, I dont understand. Where the hell are we going, Honestly, I dont understand, Please explain, and I am not trying to be stupid, although I might be.:confused::confused::confused:

neville_nobody
31st Dec 2010, 07:35
Sunstate are in the poo for this but for some reason they are still operating.

At the end of the day this is the problem. CASA don't have the guts to pull the AOC of a major player. If Sunstate was some GA operator in the bush somewhere CASA would have cancelled their AOC years ago. Yet when it comes to QF they are to scared and I suspect QF probably knows this. I always thought that if you got a RCA and didn't comply that was the end of your AOC,

LAME2
31st Dec 2010, 10:21
"Yet when it comes to QF they are to scared

It is not rocket science guys. Been known by those in the industry for years. The big Q and CASA are "the brotherhood", big Enos and little Enos, whatever name you like. One does not do anything without the approval of the other. Publicly, little Enos has the stick. Behind closed doors big Enos wields the power and has the authority. This arrangement is too important for both parties and will never be broken.