PDA

View Full Version : Its Time Mr.Joyce


DEFCON4
5th Nov 2010, 21:23
Its time for Qantas Management to admit that blunders have been made in regard to the maintenace of the fleet.The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that the problem exists.Managment are in denial.
Fix the problem before your luck runs out and you lose a hull and human lives with it.
Its not a time to save face.
Its time for honesty and action

Sunfish
5th Nov 2010, 22:04
Don't waste your breath. A crowbar or Two will be needed to effect change and that will be after not One but Two hull losses.

fl610
5th Nov 2010, 22:24
QF shares wirth - less?

BigGun
5th Nov 2010, 22:25
I guess if we stripped all the bonus's from all the managers, we would have plenty of finds for engineering :D

gordonfvckingramsay
5th Nov 2010, 22:52
Rolls Royce shares off nearly 5%! I wonder if they have been cost cutting too......

beatup
6th Nov 2010, 00:12
Forget management, high time for Purvinas to go. The guy just simply cannot be truthful! One fabricated story after another! Anyone hear him on the 7pm Project last night? Why would any media agency ever choose to interview him? Well, it is the media I suppose, Facts? no thanks, eyebrow raising story? You Bet!!

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Nov 2010, 00:35
Forget management, high time for Purvinas to go. The guy just simply cannot be truthful! One fabricated story after another! Anyone hear him on the 7pm Project last night? Why would any media agency ever choose to interview him? Well, it is the media I suppose, Facts? no thanks, eyebrow raising story? You Bet!!

Well that bloke would be me. Can you elaborate on anything I said that was not the truth?

ampclamp
6th Nov 2010, 00:38
I'm not sure which episode you watched but the one I saw had him answering questions put to him and doing so in a straight forward manner.

He's got a good head for radio but I think for the most part he is doing a good job.

Soup Nazi
6th Nov 2010, 00:43
I'm not sure where this is going, sure issues must exist regarding maintenence, but surely the A380 engine could not have been caused by this??
SN

LAME2
6th Nov 2010, 00:44
Don't understand your comments Beatup regarding SP on 7PM Project. I have watched the episode and I cannot fault what was said or call it untruthfull. You may have heard what you wanted to hear. Steve, well done. Your obviously getting under their skin. Keeps the facts coming. You may need to give the interviewers further evidence to support your statements. The message needs to get across.

ampclamp
6th Nov 2010, 00:48
soup nazi I agree this one is likely a material failure not maint related but incidents like this allow the greater scheme of the constant cost cutting in airlines to be put in the public record.

FCMC
6th Nov 2010, 01:20
Forget management, high time for Purvinas to go. The guy just simply cannot be truthful! One fabricated story after another! Anyone hear him on the 7pm Project last night? Why would any media agency ever choose to interview him? Well, it is the media I suppose, Facts? no thanks, eyebrow raising story? You Bet!!I completely disagree.I think he performed extremely well.He may have deflected some direct answers but never said anything that wasn't the truth. Could you imagine how rampant QF management would become if it wasn't for people and associations like this!!!!!

indamiddle
6th Nov 2010, 01:58
i watched the chick from HR dept. i watched fed sec alea.
only one knew what they were talking about.
one was a complete embarrassment to qf.
any skinnier and at least she would be useful as a dipstick.

FGD135
6th Nov 2010, 02:01
You guys sound like a rabid lynch mob.

The simple reality is that engines fail and aircraft turn back all the time. This happens to all airlines - not only Qantas.

I suggest you are all going off half cocked. The fault in the engine may well turn out to be nothing to do with Qantas.

Will you come back here to retract the lunatic assertions if the fault is found to have been in the engine manufacture? Of course not.

TIMA9X
6th Nov 2010, 02:03
Can you elaborate on anything I said that was not the truth?

You spoke the truth, friends of the bean counters will try to divert the truth. I can't remember when QF have been under this much pressure in my lifetime. I think it's become an issue between "bean counters v flight ops across the board" ie pilots engineering CC's & ground staff. All techies in the various departments (normally conservative by nature) have spoken out at different times over recent years seem to have fused together with the same message, "enough is enough" regarding cost cutting! QF's handling of the media over the past couple of days was abysmal!

It's similar to what the Ralph Norris at the CBA did this week, successfully drew more attention to the corporate greed theme. AJ & his henchmen, like Ralph Norris just could not see it coming. Why? (some corporate Wallies may ask.) In Australia, it is my belief, the guys at the top of today's corporate towers are so immersed in delivering bonuses for themselves and the shareholders they have taken their eyes of the ball that runs their respective businesses.

Unlike bank branches, QF's branches are a/c's which are not firmly fixed to the ground. The operation of their branches are a little more complicated than a banks, simply locking the safe, set the alarm, then the door and going home at 6.00pm with the secure feeling that the transactions will be handled by the computers overnight.

If a banks computer fails it's not going to set the branch crashing to earth but merely an inconvenience for the workers the next day. Airlines branches operate differently, possibly to the surprise of some corporate airline bonus gatherers (managers) who choose to run their business like a bank. Sooner or later it will turn ugly if this style of airline management continues. The last few days may show signs of this ugliness.

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Nov 2010, 02:38
Well no untruths uncovered yet.

A couple of well intentioned posts here wondering if Qantas actions or non actions have anything to do with the 380 engine incident. I say they do or at least could have. If I could use an example. We will create a fantasy airline and call it "Qantas/TAA 1984".

At Qantas/TAA 1984, they prepare well in advance for new aircraft types that are coming into the fleet. Engine experts are sent o'seas to learn about new JT9D's, cmf56's. Tooling is ordered and ready for the first Eng change and then overhaul. Checks are carried out before they are due and workshop Engineers and LAMEs are encouraged to report anything out of the ordinary. Every single engine is overhauled in house and the apprentices who spend two years in these workshops become the LAMEs of tomorrow who carry with them all they have learnt from their time in the shop. In flight shutdowns are extremely rare and the old hands working there cannot recall an uncontained in flight shutdown. The fantasy airline becomes reknowned for its expertise and is seen as a world leader in its field because problems are found prior to takeoff.

Of course we don't live in a fantasy world do we. It is 2010. Managers get rewarded based on how much money they can save. The bonuses are so tempting that judgements sometimes are clouded. So how do the poor managers feed their families whilst still being able to send them to the best private schools and have BMW's delivered in the morning of each childs 18th Birthday? Here are a few ideas -

Why not close every single in house Engine Maintenance workshop including the RR one this year.
Shut down Australias biggest HM facitlity (syd), tell the press the work will go to Avalon, send it overseas and ignore your own QA dept that advises after a damning internal report that "continued use of this facility should be seriously reconsidered".
Take your Avalon workforce that was at 900 and due to increase when work was to be shipped there from Syd and reduce it to 600.
Accept a managers presentation who claims the new 380 can be maintained by 24 LAMEs only worldwide.
Stand down 6 LAMEs because they wrote defects into Tech Logs about cockpit doors that were not secure (this should scare the rest off, remember defects cost money).
Outsource a vast majority of your component maintenance.
Outsource your entire IFE work because that is not a real airworthiness affair (Swiss Air may disagree).
Get your QA dept to ammend forms submitted by LAMEs about major defects so that the reports need not be submitted to CASA for more detailed investigation.
Accept that an aircraft maintained overseas can come home with 95 defects, then send more aircraft to the same facility.
Reduce your apprentice intake from 400 (combined airline number 1971 with much smaller fleet) to 100 and then tell the press you are doing a great thing for young Australians.
Promote engineers based on one off interviews, not experience.
Continue to tell the press that safety is the number one priority.
Get an aviation expert, who must know everying about aviation because his uncle who worked for an airline in the 70's took him through a plane to support your statements
Personally attack a union leader who worked on the tools for 21 years, whose father, uncle and cousin spent the best part of their lives in aircraft maintenance, to draw attention away from the issues at hand.
and get a few cronnies to put posts on a website called Pprune to discredit the doubters.Yes the 380 engine may or may not have been picked up by the fantasy airline Qantas/TAA 1984. They may have noticed changes to the vib monitoring, replaced some parts earlier, had more time or experienced people to investigate the known issues with the engine prior to Thu or just noticed something out of the blue and felt it their duty to report it.

I would rather be talking publically today using this, along with the growing list of events, as examples of what could happen whilst cost cutting continues. We don't know where the next problem will occur on a Qantas flight or if it could ever have been prevented. Let's hope its picked up on ground, not at 30,000 ft.

skybed
6th Nov 2010, 02:52
:D :D :D ......................

LAME2
6th Nov 2010, 03:07
Stand down 6 LAMEs because they wrote defects into Tech Logs


Well recent history has shown you would not want to be the LAME/Pilot who wrote up a defect Management did not want to know about. I wonder if someone did notice any defects with the said engine on the A380 but felt concerned enough with putting food on the table, not to report it.

Short_Circuit
6th Nov 2010, 03:21
I once worked for an airline that did not approve of hold items being added during a SYD transit, it was against policy to enter a MEL hold item when an A/C was at the hangers, it was not acceptable to make any hold item during an A chk but if it had to be (when much later in career it was possible) needed an ATP to do so, it was all but impossible to release an A/C from heavy with a hold item without a CAA ( CASA) signed Concession.
Now it is acceptable to release an A/C on a Heavy Maint from overseas MRO with 79 odd hold items. Where is worlds best practice or safety in this company, sure it's not from the top. These are sad times for aircraft maintenance.:(
Keep 'em honest Steve.

1746
6th Nov 2010, 03:32
Steve, your last post captures the issue in a nutshell. :D:D:D

My experience bears testament to your accuracy!

While the A380 issue may or may not be a RR issue, the facts of the matter are that there is no longer any RPT engine overhaul facility in Australia; and who made those decisions?
Who stands down LAME's for reporting Defects as required by the CARs?
Who demands "world's best practise" and yet pays massive above the odds executive bonuses?
Who stops the apprentices becoming Licensed?
Who stops refresher and simulator training?
Who stops simulator training being a component of a Mechanical course? just to mention a few items?
Well you may ask!
and where is the regulator??????:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Turban
6th Nov 2010, 03:35
Great post ALAEA Fed Sec (http://www.pprune.org/members/205449-alaea-fed-sec) :D

Draws a very clear picture of what's going on and what's wrong whit it :ugh:

Things have to be displayed that way to masses.

gobbledock
6th Nov 2010, 03:41
And so the holes in the cheese become even closer aligned !
Since Dixon and Joyce started their cost cutting exercise commencing 7 years ago, this is what we have today.
Don't worry, the final chapter is yet to be written. They will lose a complete hull. Tick tock...........

Jack Ranga
6th Nov 2010, 04:36
Well beatup in the words of the South African character in Lethal Weapon:

"So who's the d!ckhead now?"

You attacked a bloke who seems pretty transparent to me, who just happens to post regularly here.

Don't see too many of the management types you are defending posting on here with their side of the story? Maybe you can relay for them?

Signature
6th Nov 2010, 08:09
Well put Steve.

Keep fighting the good fight!

FCMC
6th Nov 2010, 10:07
Geez I forget about a lot of that Fed Sec and its absolutely,undeniably spot on!
I challenge any QF Manager to deny it. You can't hide the truth!
Unfortunately QF managers are so short lived they don't know what there predecessor has done.

teresa green
6th Nov 2010, 10:32
79 hold items are you kidding? When QF for reasons unknown, took pity on me and made me a the oldest shark watcher (S/O) in history, (after 30 years of command, due to 89 but we won't go there) I often got the job from the FE who had more important things to do (like reading playboy) to write out the tech logs. Normally say from HNL to SYD to would be lucky to write 2 pages, normally relating to seat 22a entertainment u/s, drain blocked in galley with coffee beans (every time) airconditioning pac u/s Rat seen in galley, rat seen leaving galley, and every time, reverse thrust stuck in reverse thrust. Oh dear, what innocent times, 79 hold items would have put engineering into a state of shock, never mind one trans qual. How times have changed!

ozbiggles
6th Nov 2010, 11:34
Seen this in another organisation that has been around for awhile too.
They used to be able to pull aircraft and engines apart and put them back together and train there own newbies by showing them how and teaching them.
Then the major shareholder wanted to save some money and outsourced much of the maintenance. Along with the corporate knowledge.
They out sourced the maintenance to the cheapest bidders and companies under their own financial pressures.
That organisation has had fatal accidents and VERY near incidents were maintenance has been a factor.
When a company gives away its corporate knowledge it increases its risk.
As they say, if you think safety is expensive try having an accident.

MyerFlyer
6th Nov 2010, 15:25
At least Joyce unlike Dixon has allowed the QF/JQ A330 work to all be done in Australia for the first time.

Hopefully a step in the right direction....

BAe146s make me cry
6th Nov 2010, 16:01
Great post #17, ALAEA Gen Sec

We're having issues of our own here in the UK. I find it sad that a reputable airline such as Qantas treats it's LAMEs with such contempt. Our own NAA, the UKCAA, in league with the failure that is EASA is also following a similar 'stand back & observe' style of regulatory oversight. I feel we have a few upcoming events of our own to mirror yours unfortunately.

Good luck to all those that demand and deserve a return to high standards

BAe

FAA/EASA Avionics LAE
UK ALAE(1981) member

TIMA9X
6th Nov 2010, 16:07
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_pFSzrseqLnk/TNV6Yt68wJI/AAAAAAAAAp4/A19Ac_tHxOY/s640/qf-gag.jpg

The Professor
6th Nov 2010, 20:05
ALAEA Fedsec,

You are playing politics, and playing it reasonably well.

“Can you elaborate on anything I said that was not the truth?”

Like most politicians, your message is not in what you say but what you imply.

Regarding MRO’s:

“Is only a matter of time before an aircraft serviced in an overseas facility finds itself in the side of a mountain”

Regarding the incorrectly mounted engines:

“When you don’t have your engines mounted correctly that is a likely outcome” (El Al in AMS which was NOT the result of engineering oversight as you implied)

Regarding the 767 flap jam:

“…..certainly had more dire consequences to the Garuda aircraft when most of the …..lost their life” This is NOT the reason for the Garuda accident and you know it my friend.

You sure are gaining industrial mileage from unrelated mishaps.

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Nov 2010, 20:48
I'd like to see the questions and answers in context rather than just the topic and then something said in the course of a conversation. Do you have any links there?

Sunfish
6th Nov 2010, 21:05
Lets get down to tin tacks.

How long has Rolls Royce known about the problem with the IP bearing/coupling arrangement?

My guess (and it is a guess) is at least Six months, AD's usually don't just happen overnight.

Before they issued that AD, they will have seen this condition on one engine, then probably pulled and inspected others with higher times if possible, and found the condition again, put Two and Two together and presto!

Now we come to Qantas.....

Does Qantas have an RR trent 900 specialist in house? Does he watch over every single engine, graphing the vibrations, graphing the SOAP, T's and P's? Poring over every single communication with every other airline running the same engine? Asking RR hard questions?

If Qantas does have this person, were they aware of the AD? Was QF planning additional inspections of its own volition?

...or was the entire question of engine safety and performance management outsourced?

These are the questions CASA should be asking; who knew what and when did they know it, and what did they do about it? What conclusions can be drawn about the safety management of QF's engines?

I'm not holding my breath.

QF is heading for third world status where the companies have no technical brains and rely on what they are told by the manufacturers.


P.S. Well said ALEA Fed. Sec. We are heading back to the technical capability we had prior to WWII - totally dependent on overseas corporations, and it will bite us in the arse again just as it did before.

dirty deeds
6th Nov 2010, 22:33
I have just finished watching a movie that was given to me by a friend, it's called Whisky Romeo Zulu. The movie is based on a true story about an Airline in Argentina called LAPA Airlines. This movie was written, directed and stared in by the actual Captain, Enrique Pineyro. Captain Pineyro documented and voiced his concerns about the Airlines training and Maintenance practices to no avail. He was ostracised by the Airline, his colleagues and the equivalent of the Argentine CASA took his medical on psychological grounds.


Two months after he resigned, the Airline crashed a B737 on Take Off.

On 22 December 2000, in a 1200-page resolution, Judge Literas charged four LAPA officials and three members of the Air Force. The LAPA officials were charged with estrago culposo seguido de muerte (similar to 'catastrophic criminal negligence leading to death') and included:
Gustavo Andrés Deutsch – President.
Ronaldo Patricio Boyd – Director general.
Fabián Chionetti – Operations manager.
Nora Arzeno – Human resources manager.

Likewise, several members of the Air Force were prosecuted for dereliciton of duty in public office:
Brigadier Major Enrique Dutra (retired) – Head of the Command of Aerial Regions.
Commodore Carlos Petersen (retired) – Director of Empowerment and Promotion.
Commodore Diego Lentino (retired) – Director of the National Institute of Aeronautical and Space Medicine.

If I was AJ and any other Senior Exec at QF, and also a Senior Exec of CASA, I would be worried and take the time out to watch this movie, it is very ENLIGHTENING TO SAY THE LEAST!!!!!!!!!!!:=:=:=:=

airtags
6th Nov 2010, 23:51
Valid points SunfishI think there are many questions that need to be posed - formally, once the ATSB has isued the prelim.

Every Pilot and for that matter CC needs to be quite direct with the company in that the aircraft is the workplace.

As a workplace every employee in it has legislative rights to safety & amenity. There are also firm employer obligations in respect of consultation.

Any and every decision made by Qantas that affects the 'workplace' is not just under the authority of the Regulator (CASA), but also is wholly subordinate to the applicable and sometimes differing State OHS&E legislation. (interestingly classified this according to the State in which the person was employed)

Under the Act, any employer, (inc an employee who is a Manager) and the Directors can be personally liable and subject to criminal prosecution in respect of knowingly endangering an employee in the workplace.

Add to Sunfish's questions the WHO, WHEN & WHY's in relation to OQA, the Euro A.D and the decision to run the MEL out to the max allowable. With two other 380's now recieving exchange engines the answers better be more than the arrogant corporate spin and safety cliches that have been served up lately.

This incident is not "...an engine failure that's separate from the plane itself" [Joyce] - - it is in fact a very real sobering demonstration that potentially some of us may not get to go home to the wife & kids simply because someone thought they can pick up a bonus by cutting costs or covering up.

AT

Mstr Caution
6th Nov 2010, 23:54
I asked the question on Pprune some time ago, who held the AOC to Qantas mainline.

It was interesting to see that within a week of my statement the AOC holder had been changed to LS.

Why the change?

Skynews
7th Nov 2010, 00:32
Actually it's all OK!

Dick Smith said all they need to do is place an advertisement in the newspaper advising how much they spend on safety and all will be good:D

Apparantly the more you pay for a ticket the safer you are, that's why dick travels 1 st class I guess.

He had his little airplane maintained in Singapore once and hey did a good job, so there are no out sourcing of maintenance issues to worry about.

Source = channel 9.

Captain.Que
7th Nov 2010, 01:55
Unfortunately when this blows over it will be business as usual.
Nothing will change until there is a hull loss and loss of life.
The bean counters have no doubt factored this in in their cost risk analysis.
The litigation following such an event will lead to a major revamp of the business and a few bodies incarcerated.
Aviation is littered with evidence of cost cutting leading to loss of life.
"It will never happen to us" seems to be the Qantas mantra.
Recent events indicate that it can and will

FGD135
7th Nov 2010, 02:22
If any of the posters to this thread were running Qantas they would go broke within weeks.

Running a business REQUIRES, from time to time, aggressive cost cutting and other measures in order to stay competitive.

Qantas is still in business today - and you all still have your jobs with them - because of the actions of management.

The airline business is not what it was 20 years ago. When will you lot wake up to this reality?

Mstr Caution
7th Nov 2010, 02:35
Qantas is still in business today - and you all still have your jobs with them - because of the actions of management.


It's tommorrow & the day after that employees are concerned about!

That's why there was such a large turnout of pilots to the Syney meeting in August.

There was a unanimous vote of no confidence in the J* CEO at that time.

AJ needs to act & act fast before the same sentiment emerges from mainline.

DEFCON4
7th Nov 2010, 03:04
Qantas used to have greater input from its employees.They were empowered and treated with respect.Then old scrotum face came along and the rot set in.
Employees are now kept at a distance.In particular pilots.
The problem with Qantas is that management has taken the corporation on a journey......they just havent taken the employees with them.
The management for the last ten years have had their noses in the trough.
One employee in particular tried to flog the business off and make himself $60 mil in the process.
So yes we are fortunate to be employed.Not because of management but rather in spite of them
So give that little cliche a rest
Many of us thought Joyce would be different.....he ain't!!
Clifford is the puppet master and after having met him let me say he is just a taller version of Dixon..ie a bigger prique

FGD135
7th Nov 2010, 03:05
There was a unanimous vote of no confidence in the J* CEO at that time.


Was the "no confidence" in looking after the pilot's best interests or in looking after the airline's best interests?

blow.n.gasket
7th Nov 2010, 03:09
FGD135

Was the "no confidence" in looking after the pilot's best interests or in looking after the airline's best interests?


I think you will find that those sentiments are actually one and the same, only the '80's mentality Management have yet to work that out!

DEFCON4
7th Nov 2010, 03:18
We have figured out that our future is tied to the future of the business.
If management takes it down we will go down with it.We dont want them to screw it up.They appear to be doing their best to do exactly that.
There are a lot better qualified people on the shop floor to run Qantas.
This myth that managment knows best is exactly that ....a myth.
The whole management structure is based on a mate's network...not on ability.
What does Clifford know about airlines?He knows where 2K is.Thats about it
Jocye is a number cruncher who is still surprised by his enormous good luck.
He still believes the crap he is fed by the middle ranking snouts.
A naive Irish number cruncher helping run an Australian Icon into the ground.
Its called CFIT

Mstr Caution
7th Nov 2010, 03:20
I don't believe the Airlines best interest has been a key factor in alot of decision making.

Other poor decisions would be:

1. APA private equity bid
2. Freight collusion on pricing
3. Denying travel agents commisions
4. Not buying fuel efficient aircraft earlier, when they had the chance (B777)
5. Setting up Australian Airlines only to shut it down
6. Paying tax on behalf of the former CEO
7. Segmenting the airline into individual business units only to amalgamate them again.
8. The confrontation with the engineers over reasonable pay increases.
9. Pay freezes for employees post September 11th & Sars, then backing up with record profits.
10. Not affording employees reasonable career progression to J*, read that take a command at J* & you have to resign from QF.
11. Pulling out of ports like Rome & Paris, telling staff if you can't go daily its not worth servicing the market. Then within 2 years setting up an airline with a fleet of new aircraft.
12. Forcing staff to take annual & long service leave & continue to recruit in a subsidiary.

These are just a few examples of the top of my head.

Admittedly, AJ has inherited alot of issues.

Staff engagement being one of them & they wonder why.

Arnold E
7th Nov 2010, 03:27
Qantas is still in business today - and you all still have your jobs with them - because of the actions of management.I here what you are saying, but, why was maint outsourced because it was better maint, or because it was cheaper? I suspect the latter, which means safety was not the major consideration. I might also add that there are many people that have not got jobs at QANTAS now because of management decisions.

Blue Sky Baron
7th Nov 2010, 03:32
Would love to see a public debate between Joyce and Fed Sec. over Qantas maintenance, its past and its future.
Come on Mr ABC, there is a ratings winner!

BSB :ok:

beatup
7th Nov 2010, 03:41
Yes Steve, I will elaborate. Let me take up just one of the issues.
You spun a good story on the 7pm Project saying that QantasLink Dash 8's had unsafe flightdeck doors which could be opened with a paddlepop stick.
Your response to my previous post was that you said no untruths. Seeing you must be a man of impeccable integrity I can only assume that you don't know that the alleged flaws with the said Dash 8's has been fully investigated by a team of CASA airworthiness inspectors. This inspection found that there were no matters of concern, the doors are fully compliant with all safety/regulatory affairs. Would you please go back to the 7pm Project and set the record straight.

Thick Thumbs
7th Nov 2010, 04:04
Hey Beatup,
If the flight deck door is fully compliant, how come you can open it with a paddle pop stick?
Maybe those responsible for the doors compliance have treated it with the same philosophy used by RR with their IP Turbines.
You just don't get it do you.

- T.T 40 years maintenance experience, 29 years a LAME

AN1944
7th Nov 2010, 04:05
SMELLS LIKE AN ANSETT BORN AGAIN PROBLEM BEANCOUNTERS FUNUKLING WITH THE EQUIPMENT THEY NO NOTHING ABOUT WHERE DO THEY GO AFTER THE BOOM IF IT HAPENS:ugh:

beatup
7th Nov 2010, 04:11
Thick thumbs, you've missed the point. You CANT open the doors with a paddlepop stick. Neither with a Drumstick, Cornetto, Magnum... blah blah...
Lets just say that CASA took with them more than a paddlepop stick when they checked the doors - in response to these allegations - and the all clear was given.

Sunfish
7th Nov 2010, 04:49
FGD135:

If any of the posters to this thread were running Qantas they would go broke within weeks.

Running a business REQUIRES, from time to time, aggressive cost cutting and other measures in order to stay competitive.

Qantas is still in business today - and you all still have your jobs with them - because of the actions of management.

The airline business is not what it was 20 years ago. When will you lot wake up to this reality?

With respect it's you that don't get it. The management and employees get it absolutely, so do the shareholders.


The absolute function of management is to maximise the value of the corporation IN THE LONG TERM.

... For management that does NOT mean maximising the value of your annual bonus for the next Five years before you retire or resign, leaving a smoking wreckage of cost cutting and reduced capability behind you. That is the problem - managers have every incentive to do exactly that, and devil take the poor sod who has to clean up the mess.

....For employees, who may be starting what they hope will be a Forty year career with the same employer, what do you expect them to do when they see managers taking short sighted decisions that the employees know will compromise the very existence of the company in Five or Ten years time?

...For shareholders, what is the value of their shares after QF loses Two hulls in succession? Will they sell to Singapore when the bid is inevitably made after the accident? Don't expect senior management to give you good advice, senior management contracts these days have an automatic golden parachute attached to any "change of control" of a business. Don't expect the Board to tell you to do anything but sell your shares. As for the employees, you can expect the new owners to blame you for the accidents you tried so hard to avoid!

You saw this behaviour with Dixon and the privatisation bid, what makes you think that the same mindset is not at work right now? If QF is sold or taken over, these guys are fully protected and will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Why would they care about employees or shareholders, let alone the long suffering Australian public?

THEY DON"T CARE. THEY WIN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

ALAEA Fed Sec
7th Nov 2010, 04:54
Thick thumbs, you've missed the point. You CANT open the doors with a paddlepop stick. Neither with a Drumstick, Cornetto, Magnum... blah blah...
Lets just say that CASA took with them more than a paddlepop stick when they checked the doors - in response to these allegations - and the all clear was given.


What are these Dorothy Dixers? For those reading, Beatup is not an alter ego of mine throwing in simple questions with easy answers. I think he is serious. He must think I know nothing about aviation but I have had a few years in the game.

I'll get up to the shops and grab some stuff for dinner. Cook it up and respond in full later tonight.

Steve P

beatup
7th Nov 2010, 05:10
Steve, I have never asked you a question. I've only ever stated facts!

Angle of Attack
7th Nov 2010, 06:32
Other poor decisions would be:

1. APA private equity bid
2. Freight collusion on pricing
3. Denying travel agents commisions
4. Not buying fuel efficient aircraft earlier, when they had the chance (B777)
5. Setting up Australian Airlines only to shut it down
6. Paying tax on behalf of the former CEO
7. Segmenting the airline into individual business units only to amalgamate them again.
8. The confrontation with the engineers over reasonable pay increases.
9. Pay freezes for employees post September 11th & Sars, then backing up with record profits.
10. Not affording employees reasonable career progression to J*, read that take a command at J* & you have to resign from QF.
11. Pulling out of ports like Rome & Paris, telling staff if you can't go daily its not worth servicing the market. Then within 2 years setting up an airline with a fleet of new aircraft.
12. Forcing staff to take annual & long service leave & continue to recruit in a subsidiary.


Just obvious how today's management dont manage they just do the books while crapping on about lots of things.

I would love to see the figures QF would have saved if they had got 777's when they were introduced, my meagre brain would reckon a few billion at least!

These incidents are regretable but it does just highlight how pathetic all the management are when it comes to operational things, and I beleive it is a good time for the unions to highlight crap decisions made by these fools. Everyone you speak to are praising front line staff but basically dismissing the minions in the management areas, its great to see! :ok:

Scozzie
7th Nov 2010, 07:21
How is it everytime QF has an engine fail they trot out the same line being 'its not a safety issue'
Joyce has been quoted twice in the past few days insinuating that losing an engine is no big deal - statements along the line that 'these things happen', ' its happened before'....
IMO until the top dog starts saying things like 'its unacceptable' and 'we will move to end this series of failures' - I won't be flying QF.

gobbledock
7th Nov 2010, 07:36
Is Olivia Wirth a blood relative of Darth ?
Same cold emotionless stare, same ice like attitude, they even flick and prune their hair in the same fashion !!

I'll get up to the shops and grab some stuff for dinner. Cook it up and respond in full later tonight.
Steve P
Swiss cheese for dinner ??? Look forward to your response Steve. Keep up the good work mate...

Tidbinbilla
7th Nov 2010, 07:36
It's not often I express an opinion on the content of a thread. However, tally-ho Mstr Caution and AoA.

Well stated, those men!!:ok:

Arnold E
7th Nov 2010, 07:41
Steve, I have never asked you a question. I've only ever stated facts!
beatup, since you only state the facts, can you please tell me why QANTAS, with a perfect safety record, outsourced its maintenance?

Section28- BE
7th Nov 2010, 08:02
AN1944, you have obviously been there and seen it, before- concur 'Absolutely'. As a counterpoint, where have the last two CEO's of QAN shared a common employer???

Sunfish- you've got it in one. The minute there is partial equity for the 'supposed' engagement of a 'particular employee' as opposed to 'accountable' equity (or onus of equity vis S28-BE of the Act) under the Civil Aviation Act, you have trouble as far as the said 'Employee' and the balance point between absolute responsibility & action/judgement to the building of/security of an AOC/Company Aeronautical Integrity vrs personal maximisation of reward....

And if we look back, we have seen it before in the recent (post 2000) new start Aviation Enterprises and their struggles with the Low Cost Model and Compliance & Business Stability/Integrity issues they've faced.

Well said both of you.
Rgs
S28- BE

ALAEA Fed Sec
7th Nov 2010, 08:06
Steve, I have never asked you a question. I've only ever stated facts!

Now I don't know English that well but checked with the wife and kid who is in uni.

Would you please go back to the 7pm Project and set the record straight.

This looks like a question to me. If it was a statement, the words "would you" would not be there. I understand that a question mark doesn't appear but that may be some trouble at your end.

Looking forward to posting all the info about the cockpit doors a bit later. (Hopefully in enough time to get another hit in the press tomorrow about it.)

beatup
7th Nov 2010, 09:30
Now you're talking Steve. You pretty much summed it up. It's all about getting a hit with the press.

AWB_Clerk
7th Nov 2010, 10:26
To borrow a YouTube phrase:

"Obvious troll is obvious."

NAMD
7th Nov 2010, 10:32
Having seen Fedsec in action, this is going to be hilarious... :}

I'm off to get a broom for the remaining pieces. :E

600ft-lb
7th Nov 2010, 10:41
So beatup, if CASA came out and inspected the doors only after the ALAEA made an issue of it, is it a non issue ? Is going to the media the only way for the authority and the airline to get stuff sorted out ? Why were the latches replaced by QL management who still hold a LAME qualification ? Why wasn't the sign off "latches inspected, all ops as intended per mm xx-xx-xx' ?

And the fact that 6 LAME's were stood down for reporting a defect, doesn't that just show what a great level of engagement is present in the Qantas group ? AJ would've known exactly the situation and has done what about it ?

Doesn't it just make a mockery of the whole major Qantas catch cry in engineering - "Safety before schedule".... Only when it suits.

When will Qantas management go on the 7pm project to explain why they stand down the staff that the government authority entrusts to certify for the safety of aircraft, the staff the company has entrusted for years to certify for the safety of the aircraft, all for writing up a defect which existed. It's disgraceful.

Steve has nothing to apologize for.

duderanch
7th Nov 2010, 10:44
Hmmmm name Beatup ? Is that what happened when you were at school or what you do to yourself whilst looking at your picture of AJ in your wallet. You are obviously a Qf manager cause you're an idiot. :{

ALAEA Fed Sec
7th Nov 2010, 11:16
Ok Beatup, I will call you Greg from now on, don't ask why, I just think it suits. When Aircraft Engineers that I represent are threatened with their livelihoods I will take every opportunity to get that issue made public because it a bloody disgrace for any Engineer to be essentially told to turn a blind eye to defects. If you can't understand why, you shouldn't be reading the posts on this site.

You have claimed that I was not truthful on the box and your reason is allegedly this –

You spun a good story on the 7pm Project saying that QantasLink Dash 8's had unsafe flightdeck doors which could be opened with a paddlepop stick. Your response to my previous post was that you said no untruths. Seeing you must be a man of impeccable integrity I can only assume that you don't know that the alleged flaws with the said Dash 8's has been fully investigated by a team of CASA airworthiness inspectors. This inspection found that there were no matters of concern, the doors are fully compliant with all safety/regulatory affairs.

I did say that, or something close and it is 100% correct. They had unsafe flightdeck doors on the 19th of Oct and 7 of them were snagged by good LAMEs, here is one of the Tech log entries, the rest are similar -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/7htqm4ej (http://yfrog.com/7htqm4ej)


You may note that the defect was raised, and it was supposedly rectified. If there was no problem, it would not have required rectification. The rectification was carried out by a Manager. It didn't fix the problem but allowed him to look like he did something to sign it off. We will hear more about this later.

Now Qantaslink suspected we had some video. They didn't really want it released because they needed to buy some time before CASA got out to investigate with the Office of Transport Security. To scare the ALAEA off they send me this -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/42threatsj (http://yfrog.com/42threatsj)

I gave them an indication that I couldn't give a damn about their letter and knew the aircraft breached Aviation Security legislation. I spoke to the Head of that department and he threatened me with jail as well. I explained having aircraft with the doors in this condition is not a problem, unless you continue to fly them. They did. So we went public.

But they knew there was a problem, an EI had been ordered on the 21st and was ready by the 23rd. Here is the front page -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/jw22424748j (http://yfrog.com/jw22424748j)

Are you still thinking that the doors couldn't be opened with paddle pop sticks or this was fabricated? It hit the news on the 25th. In response Qantaslink took action against the LAMEs. Here is part of one of their letters -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/71allegationsj (http://yfrog.com/71allegationsj)

So there is a mad rush to get all the mods done in three days to make sure CASA and the Office of Transport Security see a clean ship. Here are a couple of pages from the workloads on them nights -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/g1workplan1j (http://yfrog.com/g1workplan1j)

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/6rworkplan2j (http://yfrog.com/6rworkplan2j)

So what do CASA see when they get out there, well firstly my invitation was withdrawn -

Gentlemen,

Apologies for not providing notice earlier today (Yesterday by the time you read this message).

I have been advised by Qantas that they do not agree to the attendance of the ALAEA at the inspection of aircraft tomorrow (28 October). As a result I am withdrawing the invitation that I extended to Mr. Purvinas on 26 October 2010.

We remain interested in a meeting with the ALAEA to further explore your allegations. I will contact you before the end of this week to arrange a suitable time for these meetings.

| National Team Leader- Investigations |
Office of Transport Security |


And yes Greg you are correct, on the 28th of October, over a week after the incident was raised on 7 aircraft, a team of highly skilled CASA investigators found nothing wrong. Neither did the Office of Transport Security. What a surprise.

Now back to your question -

Would you please go back to the 7pm Project and set the record straight.

Answer - No. My facts are always thouroughly researched before I open my mouth.

You wanna play on this site, try as you will. I suspect (but would stand corrected) that my open publishing over many years has helped build some credibility. Its a different approach, but our industry is being torn apart by bean counters and pricks who will take our jobs at the drop of a hat in the name of short term bonus targets and at the expense of Australias oldest airline. I will do whatever it takes to ensure Ansett never happens again and I'm pretty sure there are at least 35,000 people behind me.

If you still wanna believe that little Irishman when he says my claims or stories are outrageous, don't tackle me here. You will always come off second best.

Cheers
Steve P

Metro man
7th Nov 2010, 11:45
If an airlines going to decimate its maintenance capabilities then surely it would make sense to operate new aircraft and turn them over frequently. Instead QANTAS have a number of ageing aircraft which require the very sort of skilled back up that they have got rid of.:confused:

Even newer aircraft still require considerable resources in the maintenance department especially if the type has been recently introduced and is unproven.

Not everybody wants to fly on a low cost or foreign airlines. QF can compete on the trunk routes within Australia and major overseas destinations if it sorts itself out.

600ft-lb
7th Nov 2010, 11:56
Nice one Steve. Eagerly awaiting gregs response

Flokkered
7th Nov 2010, 12:20
Fedsec is on fire!:ok:
greg = OWNED:ouch:

FlexibleResponse
7th Nov 2010, 12:44
After the best part of 40 years as a professional military and airline pilot, I would rather put my faith and trust in Steve Purvinas and his team of Aviation Engineers...rather that in a bunch of 3-5 year itinerant managers who are inspired and motivated only by short-term performance bonuses.

The long term health of any business or company does not really matter to any professional manager who may be able to flit from one company to another like a butterfly when things get tough or broken.

But, for those at the sharp end of an airline such as the aircraft crew and engineers, the health of the aircraft fleet and the true backing of the spirit of safety is very personal indeed. It means a hell of a lot more to us than some PR person or cash-motivated manager mouthing empty words of "We put safety first".

But, each and every passenger should reconsider his/her personal choice of who should be trusted and who may be telling the truth as the aircraft engines spool up for take-off.

ozangel
7th Nov 2010, 12:49
Steve P - that was just fecking brilliant. Please take that approach to the 7pm project and anyone who will listen, as it's the approach that will get you and what your members want/deserve!.

Don't be put off by the 'anti' union folk - expose this and you'll have every person who has put foot on an aircraft behind you.

The future of our industry lies in your hands right now - never before has there been such an opportunity to hang draw and quarter the bastards who destroyed it.

bugsquash1
7th Nov 2010, 12:58
Congrats Fed Sec on some great posts even showing the Executive Manager for what he really is.:D

This is only one of the reasons that I and many more have left QantasLink for greener pastures @ great cost to the airline.

Qantas should sack this pr*ck for threatening behavior and gross incompetence, over 35% of pilots left in 2007/8 and no doubt many ground and cabin staff as well.

Is this the sign of a good manager, I think not.:=

Then again his cost cutting and total staff disenchantment seem to be part of management philosophy within the airline, promote him I say!!!!

Jabiman
7th Nov 2010, 13:23
What i find amazing is that they were trying to invoke 'assistance to a terrorist act' as threat to silence you. We certainly are on a slippery slope....

Safety Concerns
7th Nov 2010, 13:56
beatup said Forget management, high time for Purvinas to go. The guy just simply cannot be truthful! One fabricated story after another! Anyone hear him on the 7pm Project last night? Why would any media agency ever choose to interview him? Well, it is the media I suppose, Facts? no thanks, eyebrow raising story? You Bet!!

Beatup you just got beat up. ALAEA you just got a new member.

Sunfish
7th Nov 2010, 19:43
What simply amazes me is that Qantas no longer has the in house design ability to modify even a ****ing door latch!!

Doesn't QF management understand that if you outsource everything, then you can not produce a better, safer or more reliable product than any other customer that uses that same outsourcing outfit?

In other words, you can never, ever again claim product differentiation on the basis of having a superior maintenance capability.

To put it another way QF is now no safer (but not less safe) than BA and LH in regard to its engines, since they are all maintained in exactly the same way.

That automatically means the QF's claim to be "The Worlds Safest Airline" must one day be proved false.

LAME2
7th Nov 2010, 20:31
Thanks for the explanation of the timeline for the incident Steve. You have answered my question on whether CASA inspected a "fixed" door or not.

If Management had any credibility on this issue, they would have allowed CASA and Security to inspect a unmodified door. That would have been the true test of their convictions.

Look forward to hearing you on TV and radio again soon.

To any of the Sunstate Engineers reading this post, you have my support. Stay true and put your faith in the Bexley boys and girls. I am sure they will support you in this until a satisfactory resolution is found with all the resources the ALAEA can muster.

Steve, these guys will be under some stress, please make it as quick as possible for such as resolution so they can get back on track with their lives. If you need a fighting fund just put the word out.

ampclamp
7th Nov 2010, 21:19
SP this needs a bigger forum and one with some clout like 4 corners.
ACA and TT have a big audience but lack the gravitas of 4 corners.I'm sure there are decent journo's out there right now looking for good story.
Mark Colvin from the ABC did a piece on qantas maintenance years ago, maybe him?

I am sickened by what I have just read.Utterly disgusted.

WorthWhat
7th Nov 2010, 21:21
Sunfish If 'QF is now no safer (but not less safe) than BA and LH in regard to its engines, since they are all maintained in exactly the same way.'Why then, hasn’t Lufthansa grounded its A380’s for engine inspection/engine change.

Bad Hat Harry
7th Nov 2010, 21:33
Probably because they maintain their engines better than Qantas.
Or they did their inspections and detected anomolies when directed to by RR

Firecat
7th Nov 2010, 21:49
Lufthansa has its maintenance inhouse and no doubt carries out preventative checks.Doesnt appear to be the case with Qantas.They have now found faults with several other engines.Why weren't these faults detected earlier?
As Peter Greegg once remarked-----We run our aircraft harder than any other airline.
What he didn't say was that this meant shorter transit times at homebase and therefore less time for adequate checks

Going Boeing
7th Nov 2010, 22:02
Posted by WorthWhat.
Why then, hasn’t Lufthansa grounded its A380’s for engine inspection/engine change.

I believe that Lufthansa only has one A380 so it wouldn't take long to do the inspections mandated by RR. It's also only recently been delivered so it doesn't have the engine hours/cycles that the QF & SQ aircraft have.

TIMA9X
7th Nov 2010, 22:04
Oil leaks on A380 engines, says Qantas CEO (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/oil-leaks-on-a380-engines-says-qantas-ceo-20101108-17jg6.html)
"It's too early for us to say what components or parts of the engine we think could have been the issue."It's too early.....or without proper "in house maintenance" It's too late? Now suddenly we have found more engines with more problems.....:rolleyes:
This thread contains some very interesting posts that just may highlight the results of "seven years of aggressive cost cutting" at QF.

Once upon a time QF worked with the engine manufacturers, now it appears passing the buck is the new culture adopted by the managers.

Turban
7th Nov 2010, 22:13
I'm sorry but Steve's post is... scary.

Really.That is clearly censorship. And I can't believe CASA is going along.
Because they are.

There is something really really really wrong about it.


Those guys must no be aware that they are running an airline :ugh:

WorthWhat
7th Nov 2010, 22:16
Thanks GB. Lucky for LH.

However SIA has even more than QF and theirs are still flying.

Gota be a reason for the difference and QF needs to find out what it is.

UnderneathTheRadar
7th Nov 2010, 23:02
...that from reading this & listening to Qantas on the news, is there any suggestion that the AD wasn't done on the QF380's.

Heard AJ again and his '90% of maintenenance is done in Australia' and that outsourced maintenance to RR & LH is not cheap.....

DeafStar
7th Nov 2010, 23:15
The Qantaslink Cockpit Doors fiasco needs its own thread. If what Alea Fed Sec says is true then it looks like a coverup to me.

B772
8th Nov 2010, 01:53
Latest News,

LH and SQ now to change some engines, number unknown at this stage.

QF to change at least 3 engines. Until a fix is found it appears the life 'of the problem' is 500 cycles making it an expensive exercise.

SweetnLow
8th Nov 2010, 03:34
Steve well done. I saw your interview the other evening and not only did you unemotively state the facts, you answered each of their questions professionally and without undue embelishment. You have the power to bring the QF situation to a head. Personally, I don't care if you use each and every QF incident, or Australian avaition incident (regardless of severity), to highlight the ongoing concerns, through any form of media be it radio, television or print. I wonder if AJ would put his family on his own aircraft at the minute?

Sunfish
8th Nov 2010, 08:09
...and having outsourced your engines and fired the Qantas engine experts, Qf's only avenue of action is: "RR what do you want us to do?

This usually lasts about five years until you realise that being lobotomised by your outsourcer is not a profitable idea. How many QF engine experts have been hired by RR? I'll bet more than one.

One then begins the painful process of reacquiring the knowledge to understand what is happening to your engines, so as to be able to ask sensible questions of your service provider. let alone asking sensible questions of potential new engine providers.

After that you begin the process of taking the maintenance back in house.

Been there, done that.

skybed
8th Nov 2010, 08:26
LH has 3 x 380 in service which all have been checked and keep flying.
Q: why is SQ & LH keep thier planes flying and QF not?:confused:

teresa green
8th Nov 2010, 09:33
QF is well known for buying a type, bringing it back to SYD and then pulling it apart into 1million pieces, then refig. Do they refig engines the same way?. Is that why SQ, BA, et al are still happily flying around the world. Have they changed fuel, performance systems? All a bit odd.:confused:

600ft-lb
8th Nov 2010, 10:30
the ALAEA and Sp are not the only association/ Union who represent engineers . In fact the ALAEA was born out of those who broke away from the old AEU / ASE /ETU and formed ther own union to. Ame's are the unsung heroes .

Mate, after being an AME for a few years out of my time, then becoming a LAME, I can say without a doubt, my union fees are much better spent with the ALAEA. The AMWU and the AWU signed off on an A and B scale arrangement which suited the incumbents and screwed everyone else over, including myself at the time to basically minimum wage.

If you truly are 62 and are still an AME, there is no need to be bitter at the LAME's and the ALAEA, just because they could see that there is no future being unlicensed, doesn't make them the ones who shat on you. I'd be bitter too if i were a 40 year veteran at Qantas on level 13 AME rates, only at myself but.

BrissySparkyCoit
8th Nov 2010, 14:47
Ame's are the unsung heroes .

Perhaps you need to learn that in this day and age, we are all in the same broken rowboat on sh!t river. Unions need to work together.

Or perhaps, you are really just a management stooge.

Cheers.

oh and PS, I am an AME union delegate.

qf 1
8th Nov 2010, 18:28
if Alan keeps rolling out that same old phrase about putting aircraft safety first, perhaps he needs to look at reopening Heavy maint in Sydney again.Remember AL talk is cheap.Lets see you put aircraft saftey first by backing it with action..:eek:

Sunfish
8th Nov 2010, 18:59
Unionist,by "engine experts", I mean LAMES and occasionally professional (ie degree holding) engineers who no longer work on the floor, but provide high level advice and the occasional mod or workaround to the airline management and the shop floor.

These are the guys with the brains and experience to see a problem beginning to happen long before the rest of the airline, let alone the manufacturer, does. They are sometimes called "Maintenance planners" or "Type Specialists" or whatever. They are the repository of most, if not all, of the technical corporate knowledge of the airline. These are the guys who can ask very hard questions to aircraft and engine manufacturers.

For example, Mr. Joyce now says that there have been "issues" relating to oil being either consumed or in the wrong place. Would that have shown up in oil consumption? Would one engine be consuming much more oil than another? Would oil be degrading faster in one engine than another? If there is "wear" between the IP shaft and disk, shouldn't this show up as increased iron levels in a spectrographic oil analysis program (SOAP)?

Who was consulted at Qantas before the RR AD was issued? Did QF have a hand in the construction and issue of the AD? Did Qantas not know that the AD was coming, and when it was coming? Did Qantas know the contents of the AD? Was Qantas already doing the planning to implement the AD, including scheduling aircraft for engine inspections / module changes and worked out any potential impact on the fleet? Finally, did Qantas ask RR what they were going to do to fix the bloody problem and when they were going to fix it?

If the answer to the foregoing questions is pretty much "No" then you have a perfect answer as to why outsourcing and cost cutting is lethally dangerous to any corporation that does it to a core competency. The guys who do this stuff and ask the hard questions used to be little old grey headed guys in cubicles who wear cardigans and read stuff all day. They are the first ones to get fired by the cost cutters because few people understand what they do and why it is necessary. It was the loss of these folk that killed Ansett Airlines stone dead. CASA had to pull Ansett's AOC because the airline could not produce the documentary evidence that any aircraft in its fleet was being maintained in accordance with its system of maintenance.

Alan Joyce has just told you and everyone else what the Qantas maintenance manual says of outsourced engines; "We don't know anything about those broken engines. We used to know a lot about engines, but not any more. We just pay a low monthly fee to the engine maker and hope they get it right according to the conditions of the contract we signed with them. This is not our problem, ask Rolls Royce."

genex
8th Nov 2010, 21:32
Sunfish....very well written. Will print off that post and put in on my office wall.

As I read it my mind flashed back to people I knew in the old TAA Engineering Training School and Technical Services Department and that lost world.

I met Ron Yates (if anyone has to ask, don't, just look around at the good that's left in Qantas and you'll see) at Farnborough couple of years back and we talked at length of these things, he with even more sadness than me I guess as his life's blood was embedded in the quality being eroded. Couple of days back spoke to Frank Ball's widow and again, sadness.

And don't anyone think that in this misty hindsight there's any form of regret at growth and vibrance and low fares. The massive growth in air travel is what these folks built....even if they couldn't have foreseen the staggering growth ahead....TAA was first to bring Economy fares, business class, turbine powered travel, APEX fares etc etc. Qantas were innovators with 707 and 747 all the way and opened up the world to Australia's travellers. There is no necessary incompatibility between growth, innovation, technical excellence, and aggressive cost management. That is a myth, propagated by mean spirited ideologues who so much want it to be true that it haunts them. But it simply ain't so. You can have legacy and LCC's and excellence as well.

And the baton has been passed, make no mistake. There are a number of carriers in Asia whose growth is double digit and whose maintenance and engineering standards and capabilities are simply awesome. They know that excellence in this area PAYS FOR ITSELF.

Well written Sunfish....hope others print your post and read it often.

Sunfish
8th Nov 2010, 22:26
Genex, you were thinking about Ron Yates, I was thinking about Ron Jackson.

ROKAPE
9th Nov 2010, 02:50
Many technical industries have been affected by the continental marching armies of accountants heavily armed with WMD's such as 'Executive Global MBA' from Pissweak University. All of these individuals believe that they can walk into any industry and run it profitably, normally by stripping it to a bare shop front.

stubby jumbo
9th Nov 2010, 03:42
Agree ROKAPE.

We had the phenomenon you describe-thrusted upon us in 2004 under the sham banner of "Crew Connect". The "thinking" behind this initiative was to sack all of the operational Line Managers(who were operating crew-CSM's and ground managers) all sacked in one foul swoop.

The result was a bunch of MBA "managers" aka chumps who came from such industries as banking, casino's,hospitals,supermarkets, department stores and even the Army. The "managers had absolutely no operational experience in the airline industry -other then jumping on a flight as pax to SYD-MEL in Y/C.
They managed by KPI's and balanced scorecards.
When we came to them with an operational issue- they would just give you the look of -WHAT THE:mad::mad::mad::mad:ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

So senior management are bewildered why engagement is at 20%. Simple -the crew could not give a rats ( about QF Corporate) !

But, in saying this-when you leave QCC and get onto the AC -everything changes. We are proud to work for Qantas and take safety and customer service very seriously.

Sure- go ask any other Joe Average who work for other large organisations and I'm sure they would just say :

"Suck it up Buddy -it ain't no different here and at least you get decent pay ,6 weeks Leave and Staff Travel":ouch:

My point though is -I reckon we can get back to being THE best again -IF and its a big IF......someone has the gonads to say: "enough is enough" in reference to cost cutting, offshoring, outsourcing,leasing engines, overseas bases, safety shortcuts and to your point Rokape-management who are in a constant state of fear (of being punted for poor performance for not achieving their KPI's)-MBA Executive types

This RR saga may turn out to be the tipping point for QF-lets hope they tip the right way

SOPS
9th Nov 2010, 04:27
I have to ask...what is a KPI???

vorky
9th Nov 2010, 04:33
Key Performance Indicator - generally predefined ratings you are expected to reach in your particular position which determine whether a bonus is payable or not.

Generally this means cost cutting, keeping head counts down, etc. while outputting at a higher achievement rating aka working your underlings into the ground.

skybed
9th Nov 2010, 05:02
for QF onboard managers means no bonus just take the sh**t from your manager depending if he likes you or not and some annual stats they roll out which in most cases are incorrect.!!!:ugh:
Last year they invented 'summer school" for OBM who haven't met their KPI's. They had to go and retrain for 3 weeks. What i have heard on the grape vine most participants failed the exams and have been demoted. very engaging:ugh:

Worrals in the wilds
9th Nov 2010, 07:10
I have to ask...what is a KPI???

You lucky, lucky person. Think Dilbert.

Generally this means cost cutting, keeping head counts down, etc. while outputting at a higher achievement rating aka working your underlings into the ground.

And for God's sake don't present your superiors with a big bill for vital repairs, necessary equipment, staff training etc, even if it's vital and/or necessary. In many companies, the 'there are no problems only solutions' mantra coupled with KPIs has created a legion of middle managers in operational areas who are terrified of admitting there's a problem or asking for money to fix it, even if they can understand the problem in the first place, which is by no means assured.

Problems then get ignored until they become moot or a crisis (unless the media cottons on). Once they become a crisis the Execs are left looking eggy on TV and desperately trying to pretend that the whole thing's under control, while behind the scenes they're running around asking their underlings; WTF happened? WTF is a gizmo? HTF did it fail? How do we fix it without buying a new bunch of gizmos, because the Board / Minister is starting to get suss but we're still too scared to ask them for any money?

You will notice that the question "how do we fix it properly and improve the system so it doesn't happen again?" does not appear on the list. :ugh:
The question "How do we build a great product?" is now officially listed as extinct, having not been spotted in the wild since 1985. :hmm:

I've not worked for QANTAS but this modus calamitas seems to be becoming the norm across all operations based businesses, not just airlines (and it's happening in government departments as well, although in government you don't get sacked for missing KPIs, just transferred to Bedourie or bullied until you leave).

AWB_Clerk
10th Nov 2010, 03:33
Maureen Shelley
From: The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au), The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au) November 10, 2010


A Qantas spokeswoman said there was no update on the situation with its own fleet although she confirmed that Qantas was continuing its suspension of all A380 flights while the engines were under investigation.

When asked for comment on Qantas' continuing woes regarding the $12 million fine by the European Commission on its involvement in a cargo price-fixing cartel until 2005, the previous ASIC fine of $20 million for the same issue and the suspension of A380 flights while celebrity ambassador-at-large actor John Travolta was in the country, the clearly harassed spokeswoman conceded "It's all happening"


AJ really does need to look at doing something with this PR muppet. Both are doing themselves no favours.

And as I type I can hear another lightning storm over YSSY..... Yes Olivia, it is all happening.

AWBC

ampclamp
11th Nov 2010, 00:48
Hard work being a PR type especially trying to polish a turd.

airtags
11th Nov 2010, 01:00
tough gig for the poor girl - especially when the cliche cupboard is bare....
..........

Ken Borough
11th Nov 2010, 02:54
tough gig for the poor girl - especially when the cliche cupboard is bare..............

..and especially when she's so far out of her depth she must have drowned long ago. Why is Qantas persisting with this lady who really repeatedly displays little knowledge of the industry? Shame is she is probably the best that Coward Street has to offer the media.:{:{

Yes, agreed. The cliche cupboard is really bare! :p

Worrals in the wilds
11th Nov 2010, 04:43
If they start using Max Markson you'll know the manure really has hit the prop...:}

TIMA9X
11th Nov 2010, 05:21
Why is Qantas persisting with this lady who really repeatedly displays little knowledge of the industry?Yep.. When it all happened she was still happening to be clueless!

Is it just me, AJ was very quick to blame RR but did he unwittingly kick an "own goal" by making the general public unnecessarily scared of RR powered A380s? I noted that news.com.au referred to the RR powered A380 as the "scarebus" yesterday.

ozbiggles
11th Nov 2010, 05:30
Don't feel to sorry for her.
She would already be working on a promotion and pay rise for saving Qantas by herself when it comes time for her performance review..... and keeping costs down.

TIMA9X
11th Nov 2010, 12:13
Qantas 'scarebus' QF32 was a flying wreck | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-scarebus-qf32-was-a-flying-wreck/story-e6frfq80-1225952363505)Qantas 'scarebus' QF32 was a flying wreck


Last week's mid-air emergency off Singapore also badly damaged a wing, which may have to be replaced.
The Herald Sun can reveal the full list of damage as Airbus A380 was nursed back to Singapore on three engines.
When it touched down the fuel systems were failing, the forward spar supporting the left wing had been holed and one of the jet's two hydraulic systems was knocked out and totally drained of fluid.
Sources compared flight QF32 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.


Further to my post above.....Wow!

Keg
11th Nov 2010, 12:34
The quoted 'sources' don't know much about the real story of the Memphis Belle. It's final mission wasn't nearly as dramatic as the movie portrayed. On the other hand, I think the A380 was much worse than originally portrayed. :eek:

teresa green
12th Nov 2010, 12:02
Nancy Bird Walton, would not be pleased about her namesake at all. I was dragged along to the cabin crew review by one of my kids, and very good it was too. But even then NAncy was being paid out for spending most of its time in the hanger, in fact there was a ditty sung about this very aircraft. Seems it has taken over where old VH EBB left off. For those to young to know, in her 21 years of flying for QF, she got locked behind a pole during engine runups, so they had to take the pole out, which in return caused all power on the jet base to cease, those locked in lifts, and those who lost all work on computers were not amused. She left her port aileron on the landing lights in Rome, ran off the runway in HKG and got stuck in mud, had a cat get loose in the hold, and for three whole weeks they had to leave food for it. (The owner sued QF) Had horrible noises (cracking) on the flight deck, which used to frighten the s%it out of the crew, (but for 21 years nobody could find the cause) had a snake loose in the main cabin, (somebodies pet), now that scattered the PAX, somehow got a monkey, yes a monkey, trapped inside the aileron area, dead of course, in fact extremely dead, and she smelt so bad they left it outside the hanger, whilst trying to find the cause. (It took some days) and each day got worse, as you can imagine. She was known far and wide as "buckets of bolts" and I am sure some older LAMES could add to her "achivements" A light hearted coment I know, but perhaps some aircraft are simply " jinxed" or simply "lemons" I would hate Nancy to be one, named after such a special lady.

Short_Circuit
13th Nov 2010, 21:59
VH-EBB (747-200 P&W))also had an uncontained fan failure of NBR 3 engine after a bird strike on TO out of SYD.
But this has nothing to do with AJ and the current mob running the show.

QFBUSBOY
14th Nov 2010, 05:36
There has not much mention being made of the previous Qantas management under Geoff Dixon's stewardship that put in place this train of events. All these woes are as a result of decisions that were made in the previous 5 to 10 years.

If you outsource your maintenance, always take the lowest quote possible, let your money making machines leave Base & Heavy Maintenance with deferred items in the Tech Log, then this was always going to be the result.

Qantas management thought that the Engineers industrial action did major damage to the brand, well its about time that they shoulder the blame for this debacle. This is far worse in terms of damage to the airline. The root problem is not the A380, it is a culmination of top management decisions related to running the airline. Its everything from pilots, to cabin crew, to engineering,to ramp staff, to cleaners,to check in staff, etc. This list goes on. It is having managers in engineering who have no engineering background, but rather Bachelor of Arts majoring in Australian History. It is this sort of people we have running an airline. I am not saying that they don't try to do the right thing, but you have to question the reason for people with no technical knowledge in positions of managing a business that is highly reliant on knowing what the outcomes are for not managing your equipment properly. It is understandable that the CEO is not a pilot or engineer, but when your middle management don't have the right qualifications for the position, then it is only a matter of time. Alan Joyce and previously Geoff Dixon have gone on the record stating that these new aircraft require less maintenance. I don't know if they have noticed, but geez, all the engineers I know have never been so busy. If this is how they are brand new, God help us when they start to age and require Major Maintenance. I am sorry to say, but we as employees are in REAL trouble for the future.

Its always great to have the newest toy on the block, but when it doesn't perform as advertised and you don't seek proper recompense for what damage is being done to the brand, then you would expect staff and the public to lose faith in the managers making these critical decisions. Maybe its time to really listen to some of your staff on the floor, and not your Yes men/women, and stop paying lip service through Employee Engagement Surveys. It might also be a good idea to trot out some of your Senior pilots and engineers to explain what is really happening to your aircraft. Sorry Alan, but some of your explanations of Technical detail leave a lot to be desired. It might sound good to the media(who have no clue) but even Technical people can explain things in layman's terms. In my own opinion, Qantas would look far more professional if the explanations were from experts in their field, and not from people who have no technical knowledge.

73to91
14th Nov 2010, 21:00
QFBUSBOY
Was told recently that whilst Dixon, can be blamed for much of the disaster, the Chairman of Woolworths, started this 'train of events' Dixon just followed his lead.


I have a suggestion, the day AJ states that the A380's have been cleared to return to normal operations, he and Clifford get themselves onto the 1st aircraft, no matter where they are departing from.

Then the next x in the senior management group i.e. direct reports to AJ, accompanied by 1 board member, gets themselves on the next x flights as well.
If they are safe enough for Qantas tech & cabin crew to work on and the paying pax to fly on, it will be a walk in the park for the senior management group.

PS: No P & J class travel here, seats must be downstairs, under the wings, with clear view of the RR engines, 'to be sure'

framer
15th Nov 2010, 09:54
he and Clifford get themselves onto the 1st aircraft

Nah that'l never happen, thats the sort of thing Fyfe would do...can't have that, people might actually think they're displaying signs of leadership and that will just confuse everyone for sure.

framer
15th Nov 2010, 09:58
Ya know what....AJ could still come out of this ok if he played his cards right. It's still early enough in his tenure to look like the guy who inherited a lemon and had the balls to turn it all around. Get the QF brand back to basics, bring the maintenance home. He could still do it if he cares about how he will be remembered.

gobbledock
15th Nov 2010, 10:12
Sorry framer - I agree with you in principle but it won't happen. If AJ was to get back to principles and rejuvinate the brand, bring all the maintenance back to AUS and re-engage his decimated workforce he would have to spend money, and he certainly does not understand that concept. Besides, the ever precious shareholders as well as his own wallet could never tolerate the hit that is necessary to turn the Aussie icon around.
It is far too late and too far gone. Darth commenced 'operation shite' back in 2003 and it continues 7 years later. QF is a shell of its former self. Sad days indeed.

Red Baron
15th Nov 2010, 12:51
Still no reply from 'beatup'!

Maintain the rage! :E

teresa green
15th Nov 2010, 19:29
I did say it was light hearted, short Circuit. My point being this A380 seems to have been a problem since day one, and in every fleet there appears to be a lemon. Certainly a wakeup call for QF. As far as Joyce is concerned he inherited a wreck, ( not just that A380) 36,000 disgrunted staff, engineering almost destroyed, (aircraft going out with 76 hold items, for crying out loud) unhead of before, ( I don't even want to ask how many trans quals) he has a huge job in turning it all around, but at least the man is approachable. For those who worked in JQ, they found he would take the time to speak to them, did not loathe pilots, and was reasonably liked. Time will tell. Give him a chance.

rodchucker
15th Nov 2010, 21:57
Well if AJ's role is to create shareholder value, where is brand value,quality,customer opinion and an unreliable airline measured in that equation.

This is typical Harvard stuff and it is the old story, how do you create a million dollar company...give a Harvard graduate a $100m company and wait......

I am sick and tired of these so called experts ignoring the things that make a good company for the sake of short term personal gains.

Please someone have some backbone and stop letting them get away with it.

Tankengine
15th Nov 2010, 23:06
I am sick of people moaning about shareholders!:ugh: [and I am one!]

Look after the passengers, re-engage the staff and the shareholders will do ok!:ok:

Runaround Valve
16th Nov 2010, 04:28
I was in Sydney Line Maintenance some 20 years ago. The Civil Aviation Authourity had a decree that an aircraft could not leave Main Base with any open items [ Hold Items. ADD, MEL, call it what you will ] in the log book. Any infraction would mean they would take some type of action. An aircraft could transit through Main Base without trouble, but no open items allowed departing Main base on higher checks.
So what has happened, has the CASA relaxed this rule and why ?. If it was in force a couple of years ago when the engineers took PIA, then the fleet would have been grounded.
I once saw an American B747 freighter that had some 97 deferred items in the log book, when it departed Sydney the count was some 103. One of them had been there for over a year. !!!

max1
16th Nov 2010, 11:40
Do you still have the retained knowledge in engineering to get it back?
Is what you have lost in people recoverable?
Have you had too many years of beancounters and that ilk, to get back to the 90 years of an ingrained safety culture that QANTAS executive have been 'trading' on for the last X years.
It's like a sporting teams Executive that trumpets to the members that we won premierships 5/10/20 years ago, and expecting us to forget that they have done sod all lately. You're only as good as your last Flag/Cup, and you can only trade on that for so long.

Worrals in the wilds
16th Nov 2010, 21:21
Maybe airlines don't actually work well as publically listed shareholder companies.
The "semi-independent business backed by government" model that's popular with ME carriers may be a better long term structure because it allows for short term costs in the interests of both long term growth and safety, as well as long range strategic planning.

The The
16th Nov 2010, 22:34
Maybe airlines don't actually work well as publically listed shareholder companies.
The "semi-independent business backed by government" model that's popular with ME carriers may be a better long term structure because it allows for short term costs in the interests of both long term growth and safety, as well as long range strategic planning.



Probably the best statement I have ever read on this forum.

Pretty much sums it all up!!!!!!:D

VH-Cheer Up
17th Nov 2010, 00:46
Of course we don't live in a fantasy world do we. It is 2010. Managers get rewarded based on how much money they can save.

Errm... No, actually, managers should get paid based on their contribution to successfully meeting the company's strategic objectives. Which means a profit-driven mentality as distinct from a cost-cutting mentality. These are quite different things.

I've been around the world a lot and have never yet seen a business cost-cut it's way to success.

stubby jumbo
17th Nov 2010, 01:11
Agree VH, however, the MDA(Master of Dixon Admin) Graduates have a contrary view.

Its ALL about head count reductions and constant cost cutting.

Just take a look at the Q Futures ( aka Sustainable Future Group) "team". Their mandate is to rip, strip and slash anything with a $$ next to it.

The ironical thing about this was -that the previous "team" was too effective and they were all made redundant to save $$$$$$.

The years of pillage from the Darth/Dame "reign of terror" will be looked back upon at the Qantas 100 year Birthday Bash as BLACK YEARS indeed.

The day it was announced(proudly) that Catering were taking all Swizzle Sticks off aircraft to save "fuel burn".......is an event that still makes me laugh:rolleyes:

And to think ....some chump received a bonus for "dreaming" this one up:yuk:

newjetpilot
17th Nov 2010, 22:43
Well, all those years of watching people you worked with who you wouldn't let reverse park your push bike saying they got into QANTAS is finally comming to a grinding climax. Didn't it always just make you wonder how the biggest incompetent fool in your group of colegues was always the QANTAS star employee? Well we are now seeing why, it just goes to show that across the board whether it be management, maintenence or flight crew they always just seem to sift out the highest calibre of idiot, as they say birds of feather flock together.
HA HA still laughing!!!!
:D:D:D

Mstr Caution
17th Nov 2010, 23:15
I'm afraid that VB have also come to the party on this issue. The VB tests are not as extensive as the QF ones but some parts are the same. QF give you the spatial, verbal reasoning and maths as well as the personality type indicator tests. VB have now introduced the personality type indicator test only. This test is from the same company that does the QF ones but I think that VB accept a wider variety of personalities than QF so this company still offers opportunities to people not just robots.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Newjetpilot: You seem to have an intimate knowledge of both the VB & QF recruitment test but don't work for either.

Sour grapes perhaps.

newjetpilot
17th Nov 2010, 23:25
I do have intimate knowledge of both enough to know that I only see the end result of both companies recruitment and that the good guys always seem to fail the first you mentioned and succeed at the latter

blow.n.gasket
18th Nov 2010, 01:50
newjetpilot:


VB & QF recruitment test

I only see the end result of both companies recruitment and that the good guys always seem to fail the first you mentioned and succeed at the latter


Wow, I thought Qantas had disbanded it's pilot recruiting section in Mainline?
Hell, mates of mine in "Classic" Qantas can't even remember how long ago the last pilot course started, not to mention promotion!

So which Qantas are you referring to here Newbiejetpilot?
Qantaslink?
Sunstate?
Eastern?
Jetstar Australia?
Jetstar New Zealand?
Jetstar Asia?
Jetstar Pacific?
Jetconnect?
Australian Air Express?
or what ever other "vehicle" Qantas use for expansion?
So which one????
Have I missed any?????:confused:

Mstr Caution
19th Nov 2010, 11:06
And it's the multitude of Jetstar brands that will see the organisations undoing......

A hypothetical of course, but when a J* aircraft based in (insert foreign country here) with crew based in (insert another foreign country here) runs off the end of a runway in (insert foreign secondary airport here). The media will report it as a J* aircraft therefore damaging the local aussie brand.

MC

Sunfish
19th Nov 2010, 15:29
Newjetpilot:

I do have intimate knowledge of both enough to know that I only see the end result of both companies recruitment and that the good guys always seem to fail the first you mentioned and succeed at the latter

I am aware of one person who had a learning disability at school. God knows how he got his commercial pilots licence.

He now flies for Qantas.