Rival unions target Qantas

[Jet-A-One]

Rival unions target Qantas



by: EWIN HANNAN
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
May 01, 2012 12:00AM


TENSIONS between unions representing Qantas workers have erupted into open warfare, after three unions took legal action in Fair Work Australia claiming their members were subject to poaching threats by a rival union.

The dispute has pitted Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes against Steve Purvinas, the federal secretary of the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, who rose to prominence during last year's Qantas dispute.
Mr Purvinas is resisting attempts by Qantas to have aircraft maintenance engineers, who are represented by Mr Howes along with two other unions, undertake work that does not need to be signed off by licenced engineers, who are represented by Mr Purvinas.
Qantas wants to implement rules to create an "A" work licence, with holders not required to have the same level of training and specialisation as licensed engineers.
Mr Purvinas wrote to union leaders, including Mr Howes and ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence on Saturday, accusing rival unions of being about to "cut a deal to save their (heavy maintenance) arses". He wrote that A-licence engineers were about to be employed "at our expense".
Mr Purvinas said he would seek a commitment from Mr Howes as well as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union "that this is our work, that these persons will be covered by the ALAEA when they attain Category A Licences and that any approach by the company to negotiate an instrument to cover their employment be referred to the ALAEA".







He said if that commitment was not made by today, membership of his union would be open to maintenance engineers "to make sure our profession is not destroyed".
In a follow-up email yesterday, Mr Purvinas wrote that if rival unions "want to destroy our industry we will have to protect our members' jobs".
The AWU, the AMWU, and the electrical trades union yesterday applied to Fair Work Australia seeking orders that the ALAEA not have the right to represent members of the three unions.
Glenn Thompson, the AMWU's assistant national secretary, last night accused Mr Purvinas and his union of targeting their members.
"They are encroaching on our traditional representation of unlicenced engineers, and it's a position we are not prepared to sit idly by and accept," he said.
"We are concerned that the ALAEA has taken a position in relation to representation of our members.
"We believe it's in the interests of Qantas workers that we represent the interests of our members.
"We say that we have a new regulatory regime and that our union has a right to cover our existing members.
"We will be having discussions with Qantas on what the regulatory requirements mean for our members and their working lives."
Mr Purvinas attacked the unions over the release of the emails, saying it showed the "union movement is in such disarray that emails can't be sent without them being splashed all over the papers".
Qantas and Mr Howes declined to comment yesterday.


All australian workers have a right to join a union. The union of their choice!

[Long Bay Mauler]

The AWU and AMWU have done nothing to save the jobs of AMEs at Qantas.

They have done such a good job as today's headline shows.

As an AME,the AWU did nothing but lose me money, by collecting my dues and under representing me when the time came, and voting on my behalf against my wishes.The ALAEA is the most democratic of any union representing the engineers at Qantas, both licenced and unlicenced.

The AWU and AMWU are far more concerned about getting the upper echelon preselected to safe Labor seats,than the welfare of their aviation members.

The ALAEA should be representing ALL engineers in aviation, as these other clowns have no real interest except for their inclusion to Qantas Club and seat upgrades.

[aveng]

And when they become "A licence" engineers they should be allowed to join the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association. Just as they would have by getting a normal licence.

[600ft-lb]

The gall of the AWU/AMWU declaring ownership over people. It's the other way around. There is such a thing called freedom of association. This is exactly what is wrong with the old school unionists, the sense of utter entitlement and the lengths they will go to, to prevent their power base being taken away.

All I know is, the ALAEA never introduced A and B scales and the ALAEA never had a platform of negotiating based upon what the metals union got. It's always been the other way around.

I love how they have spun their position. They argue the ALAEA shouldn't represent someone with an 'A' LICENCE.

"union movement is in such disarray that emails can't be sent without them being splashed all over the papers".
hear hear. disgraceful.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I have so much to say here but can't. The AMWU and AWU would send it straight to the press and make it a story for tomorrow's paper like they did the emails I sent them yesterday.

It is this behaviour that has f****d the Labor party.

[UPPERLOBE]

It might be prudent to note that the article originated in the Australian, a media outlet which is focussed on destroying unionism and the Labor Party.

Don't know if it is still the case, but the ALAEA's constitution originally excluded all engineers except LAME's.

[3 Holer]

Joyce will be loving this.

First employee against employee, now union against union - beautiful. The Fat man, Murdoch and Hawke tried this in '89, looks like they were 23 years too early.

[LHLisa]

Unions do a huge amount of good in our society which puts the dollar before all else. The rocks in Sydney would be a car park if not for the hard work of the Buildings labourers federation in the 60 s . Australian unions have done a lot of positive things in addressing social inequality.

But unions are run by people, and some people will allow themselves to be corrupted by power. This does not mean unions are corrupt, it just shows human nature at its worst can impact on any organisation.

The CEO s of large corporations will definitely be delighting and rubbing their hands with glee at this.

Can I be so bold As to point out that the Australian newspaper - which is shown above as the link to this story - is owned by Murdoch. That seems quite interesting to me as far as supporting democracy goes. Jealousy can occur as far as people not holding the power wanting to take it away from those with power. Power struggles are often difficult to understand from the outside looking in.

[unionist1974]

If you know your Union history, you will know that the ALAEA was born out of the AEU , ASE and ETU who represented LAME's until the ALAEA was bornout of the employers . The ALAEA was a bosses Union to break the power of the militant Unions in the 60's. How ironic, that the bosses are now using those Unions they coluded against back then, to bust their love child . Ah the irony of it all :)

[Worrals in the wilds]

+1 ALAEA Fed Sec. :ok:
Maybe you should send them a few false leads...:E
The CEO s of large corporations will definitely be delighting and rubbing their hands with glee at this.Agreed. Very uncool.
Power struggles are often difficult to understand from the outside looking in.
Also agreed. That's the main reason for not spraying them all over the media.

[gobbledock]

Labor has killed the Unions. While Gillard and friends think of their own agenda and are too buy getting involved in dick swinging competitions the rest of the world slips by them and so does the only vestige of protecting workers rights - Unions. What has escalated the decline in the Unions power base are the turncoats like Shorten and co as well as a political party that has lost it's testicles. The Grim Reaper has made his call an Labor is dead. Within 12 months these incompetents will receive their recompense and receive the same treatment that Anna Bligh and her pathetic weasels reaped.

The worse thing is that Ol Slugger only has to sit back, run a few marathons and enjoy the show. No campaign required this election - Labor have killed themselves, Liberals have it in the bag, and back comes Work Choices and probably 3 terms of Liberal power and the end of Unions.
Considering I am a Labor supporter traditionally it doesn't get any worse than the current situation, does it or could it? Oh I forgot, Thomson, Slipper and a red haired retarded speaking Welsh PM with a male hairdresser partner, yeah how did I miss that.

As for the QF Union debate, the only Union to not bend over for the mighty Roo was the one that didn't support 'Scale A and Scale B'. You got it ALAEA.

Now, a word of warning Alan, dont rub your pudgy little hands yet. Look around, it's not just the Unions imploding, so is society, large corporations, governments and continents. So before you jump for joy over Union infighting remember this - If it comes down to a fight to the death be sure that nobody escapes unharmed. Blood (figuratively) will be spilled on a larger scale than seen before, that you can be assured.

[LHLisa]

In July 1975 heiress publisher and community activist / union collaborator Juanita Neilson was kidnapped and murdered. Property developers were believed to be responsible for her murder yet no one was ever charged. Nielsen had been successful in her campaign with the unions to stop developers in inner Sydney "destroying" inner city areas. Juanita Neilsen realised she might be in danger in the lead up to her murder.

In 1973 Arthur King, a member of Sydney Push, campaigned along with the BLF Union against property developers wanting to demolish his Sydney neighbourhood. He was kidnapped. A V Jennings was involved, and wanted to use strike breakers against the BLF Union.

Developers wanted to turn Sydney's Botanical Gardens into a car park for the Opera house.

During this period of Australian history police were charged with corruption, as were union leaders. Does this mean that all police And union officials are bad? I don't think it does. These are complex issues. The idea of a society without police and unions terrifies me. Cabin Crew moderators on this website in the cabin crew section have locked me out of the thread I started there on Seniority. This does not mean that all PPrune moderators are fascists.

[gobbledock]

LHLisa, what about when the shoe is on the other foot, are you forgetting the American Jimmy Hoffa?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Guys Qantas has orchestrated this one completely along with their buddies in CASA, the ACTU and a couple of unions. We have expected it though.

About unions. There are so many hard working, genuine and caring union officials battling all across our country to make things better for working Aussies. There is another element who think the organisation they work for is their own personal vehicle for promotion or wages far beyond their qualifications. It's the things this second group do that disappoint so many members who resign and never come back.

I've always said that 99% of the people in unions are not interested in taking on a leadership or representative role which is fine. Of the 1% that do only half of them do it for the right reason. All the elected members of our Executive come out of that mould.

The next Federal Election is going to be a farce.

[LHLisa]

I have never heard of Jimmy and will look it up. I do understand why a lot of people feel disenchanted by the political pArty that is meant to support the working class. But I do believe they are doing their best.

In a world where the Clive palmers and Gina Rheinharts have almost unlimited budgets to supports their causes and chosen political parties the Labor party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I believe that Julia Gillard has been subjected to extra scrutiny because of her gender. Male politicians are allowed to try to do each other out of a job no questions asked. But because PM Gillard is female she has been subjected to unreasonably harsh critical for doing what is normal in politics.

Male politicians are not denigrated for their relationship status or choice of jacket or hair style. For gods sake Tony Abbot can wear speedo s on national television and still be treated with respect and dignity. Double standards?

The Labor movement is brave and forward thinking for electing a female leader. It is a shame that the electorate is having such a hard time coping with equality.

Saying that the labor party has lost its testicles is incorrect in my humble opinion.

The labor party are attempting to introduce massive reforms in the form of a mining tax and carbon tax. These tax s will help the little people in the long run , but this is hard to see in a 24 hour news cycle environment.

The Nazi party rose to power after Germany was subjected to unfair policies after world war one. Greek working class people are currently being treated terribly , due to the negligence of their politicians. Nazi state definitely does not apply to Australia. But Our Tibetan and European neighbours feeling like their only choice is self immolation ? Yeah , it's a really bad situation.

[Jethro Gibbs]

The Labor movement is brave and forward thinking for electing a female
leader

But She and her mates are just Crap at the job.:ugh:

[LHLisa]

A lot of male voters are critical of PM Gillard.

Stating she and her mates are doing a crap job is factually incorrect in my opinion.

The world is in what could be described as a state of turmoil.

Unchecked capitalism - encouraged and bought about in large part by type A personality egomaniacal foolishness- has in part led to the world being in a precarious state. Men, not red heds , largely brought about the GFC. This does not mean I do not like men , they are great to cuddle, nor does it mean I would never vote for one.

But hey. I am just a woman , my opinion is not worth that much is it?

It does concern me that unbiased media reporting on a range of important topics is hard to come be . Whether it be about unions , politicians, and a range of topics it seems money talks when it comes to the passing of information onto us, the unclean masses.

[Sunfish]

LHLisa:

A lot of male voters are critical of PM Gillard.

Stating she and her mates are doing a crap job is factually incorrect in my opinion.

The world is in what could be described as a state of turmoil.

Unchecked capitalism - encouraged and bought about in large part by type A personality egomaniacal foolishness- has in part led to the world being in a precarious state. Men, not red heds , largely brought about the GFC. This does not mean I do not like men , they are great to cuddle, nor does it mean I would never vote for one.

But hey. I am just a woman , my opinion is not worth that much is it?

It does concern me that unbiased media reporting on a range of important topics is hard to come be . Whether it be about unions , politicians, and a range of topics it seems money talks when it comes to the passing of information onto us, the unclean masses.

Your opinion is coloured by the fact that Gillard is female.

Let me tell you Lisa, in this "equal" world, women have as much right to be rotten leaders as men. The worst boss I ever had was a woman - rotten corrupt, liar, manipulator, bully and totally inept and dishonest to boot. She got where she was by being a member of the Margaret Whitlam "Old Girls Club" - which is full of lethally bad managers, and more are on the way.

The problem in its narrowest sense is that Gillard is the best of a rotten mob. The elected officials of that party have never been "on the tools" - they are all university educated former lawyers or union officials. They are exactly the same type of "born to rule" bastards that used to infect the Liberal Party.

To put that another way, genuine Labor representatives wouldn't be seen dead in the Qantas Chairmans lounge, let alone wearing an Italian suit.

To put that yet another way, how many more Thompsons and WIlliamsons infect the Labor party? How many more millionaires mates are there? How many more are there that cosy up to property developers and screw the people who trusted them? How many more leave parliament to start working for billionaires, taking Six figure salaries to screw the workers some more?

Gillard is a "Process Person", not a leader. In her world, if you do things the right way, you automatically get a good result. The trouble is that "process" doesn't work when you are trying to build on sand, and use **** for concrete, no matter how elegant the architects design looks.

Qantas is going to turn to **** if it hasn't already. The business model of Qantas and every other major Australian corporation is to outsource production and delivery of everything to the cheapest providers in the world - wherever they are - currently Asia, and destroy the Australian working class in the process.

My sources predict that "globalisation" is going to fall in a heap in 2013 because the European and AMerican workforces are going to rebel.

My own view is that if the Australian dollar needs to be at 0.75 for Australian manufacturing to be competitive, then close the &*^%ing mines until the dollar gets there and stick Rhinehart, Palmer, Forrest and the rest of the billionaires club in jail if they object. Believe me, those folks have plans for YOU and your kids, and they are not nice.

[Tidbinbilla]

Back on topic, please! That being rival unions targeting QF.

TID

[the_company_spy]

Qantas have made their mind up already that they don't want/can't afford engineering excellence. What Howes and co. will learn if they are intact about to do a deal over A cat licensing, is that the AME's will not get them, they are to expensive as well. You only need 2 years industry experience and not even a trade certificate basic qualifications. So the guy signing your rts and applying your Mel's if an A cat will know nothing and most probably not even have any basic training, only what qf have shown them parrot fashion in a quick class room session.

The AWU AMWU and ETU will get burned, only by codeifying A cat as a stepping stone and career path to a full B cat licence through industrial instrument will add value and only the ALAEA can do that.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just an update. There will be an ACTU meeting today to discuss this contentious issue. For Tech and Cabin Crew wondering what this is all about I will explain briefly.

Qantas want to bring in a new LAME licence that will allow the holder to certify for 90% of what we do. They will not have to sit a full Type course to learn about the aircraft (usually 3 months with an exam every week). They will not have to demonstrate 1000 hours of specific work on the plane that we must accrue in our Log books. They will not have to have sat the 25 or so post apprenticeship basic examinations on various aircraft systems. In fact they won't even need to have completed an apprenticeship.

They will have to have been in the industry for 2 years and they will recieve a training course that may be as little as a week. They will then be licenced to certify for your lives.

CASA call them Cat A LAME's. That is Cat A Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. The AME unions claim that they are not LAMEs. They are just AMEs with a Licence. This is so they can't join our Association. Fully supported by Qantas of course and these unions are now negotiating terms for their engagement and trying to lock the ALAEA out of these discussions.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Would they be performing the same duties as LAMEs, with the same level of responsibility?

Are there any international precedents for this? Obviously places like Chad don't count, although that seems to be Qantas' preferred direction on a lot of things..:}
Good luck, anyway.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Yes they would be performing the same duties as existing LAMEs. A Domestic Line Maintenance crew in Syd and Mel has 30-40 LAMEs who do the transit checks, sign the RTS and undertake overnight maintenance. At the secret meeting between Qantas and the other unions, they were advised by the airline that a crew could be run with 2 B licences and the rest Cat A licences.

The Cat A was first introduced in Eurpoe by EASA about 15 years ago. I think there are about 32 countries that fall under the guidance of EASA. Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.

That's telling...:hmm: Doesn't sound like world's best practice. Maybe CASA figure the 'safe skies for all' mantra doesn't actually mention the ground, so it's all sweet :}.
Thanks.

[Talkwrench]

ALAEA Fed Sec:

CASA call them Cat A LAME's. That is Cat A Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. The AME unions claim that they are not LAMEs. They are just AMEs with a Licence.

If this is the depth and sophistication of the AWU/AMWU/CEPU unions argument for justification of their desire to cover Cat A LAME's, then God help the Cat A LAME's. What a joke!

Do future Cat A LAME's really want these boneheads representing them?

Would you want them negotiating your starting wage and conditions of employment?

I suspect not. I expect any future Cat A LAME will join the ALAEA regardless of which union name appears at the top of the relevant industrial instrument.

If Cat A LAME's ever eventuate, they will realise that the ALAEA will be their best bet.

Good luck Steve. This whole case should be a no brainer, but once politics gets involved...

[gobbledock]

The Cat A was first introduced in Eurpoe by EASA about 15 years ago. I think there are about 32 countries that fall under the guidance of EASA. Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.
Tick tock

That's telling...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif Doesn't sound like world's best practice. Maybe CASA figure the 'safe skies for all' mantra doesn't actually mention the ground, so it's all sweet http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif.Thanks.
As if the Regulator cares about safety. They are too spineless to chase the big guys, I dare them to do it. The do what everyone else does and bends over and panders to the Rats every whim.......tick tock

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This whole case should be a no brainer, but once politics gets involved...


and hence the political side of this thread. Sorry mods but it is all part of it.

[Bagus]

The unions are there to protect our livelihood ,I know what the alaea is doing for its members,we have to support our executive ,this is our profession ,don't let qantas divide us ,even we have to loose our jobs so be it,our families and friends could be flying in these aircraft and I don't want to see inexperienced certifying engineers signing of for our lives.this is not Pakistan or Russia .let alaea do their job and we should support them.

[mcgrath50]

I always thought people had the right to join any union and multiple unions if they wished these days?

I believed for example, a Qantaslink pilot can choose to join the AFAP, AIPA or even the TWU if he feels the need.

Am I mistaken? If not then how can these unions say the ALAEA can not sign up there members?

[Bagus]

When u get into an investigation ,ur best bet will only be alaea as they have the expertise and knowledge.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

A few years ago there was an investigation. Not a bogus Qantas Kangaroo Court where the decision is made before you go there. A real one. Manslaughter after a light aircraft crash that was caused by a maintenance issue.

The AME was successully represented by the ALAEA in the trial.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I always thought people had the right to join any union and multiple unions if they wished these days? Sort of. All unions have membership criteria, usually occupation based. For example, if you were a plumber you couldn't join a public sector union; although if you were a government employed plumber with something like Q Build you would probably have the choice of both.

It's reasonably common for particular workers to have a choice between several unions, and in civilised workplaces the SOP is for all relevant unions to send reps to visit new employees, each put their case forward and let the employees choose which (if any) union they want to join. Of course the Big Q is not very civilised at the moment. :sad:

It's also common for unions to agree between themselves about coverage of particular occupations. The optimistic view is that it's because one union can better represent that occupation, and the cynic's view is that it's because back in the day both organizations got together and carved up the territory. :suspect: As always, the truth probably hides somewhere in the middle.


We live in a society dominated by products and consumerism. Even religion is now commoditized, as shown by the rise of new style happy clapping churches that market themselves heavily. They're attracting a lot of members, money and publicity, which is affecting the numbers of people joining traditional Christian religions. The traditionalists hate it and say it's superficial and commercial, but guess where the Gen Yers are flocking...

IMO it's the same with unions. Like it or not, unions provide a product. If they spent more time developing an awesome product people wanted then they'd attract members, particularly younger ones. Of course a number of unions are already doing this and their membership numbers reflect that. The ol' heavies may grumble, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, and whether they like it not, wrapping your membership form around a lump of 4x2 went out along with safari suits and XXXX Draught (yep, they're out, fellahs; and they're not coming back :}).

From the outside looking in, the ALAEA provides a good product, and that's why people want to join. It's light on the faceless men, alleged rorts and Heavies and big on genuine union organizers from the trade and representing its members. IMO that's the only way forward for the union movement if it wants to survive. Real people are getting sick of the 'union as political force' thing and just want someone to bat for them at the EBA shakedown.

IMO it would be more sensible to concentrate on the product and avoid public punch ups in the papers. All that does is turn even more people off the union movement completely, because it smacks of ALP politics, back room deals and self interest. These are not attractive products (particularly to anyone under thirty) and illustrate a dinosaur mentality. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs...:ouch:

[ranmar850]

It's also common for unions to agree between themselves about coverage of particular occupations. The optimistic view is that it's because one union can better represent that occupation, and the cynic's view is that it's because back in the day both organizations got together and carved up the territory. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif As always, the truth probably hides somewhere in the middle.

Gee, back to the good old days of demarcation disputes--where unions jealously held "their ground", ostensibly to maintain work for their members (read, numbers are power)--just one of things that led to a widespread distate for unions in general among the general public, and led to gross inefficiencies which were well up amongst the reasons for governments privatising enterprises that were union strongholds. The very reason behind indivual workplace agreements, with workplace flexibilty, which led to efficiency gains overall.
That said, I would support the ALEA against the likes of Paul Howe's lot.

[listentome]

The intent of the A licence was not to give Ames any certification ability on a similar level to a lame, in fact it is quite restrictive. The A licence is actually used to its full intent and extent by providing existing experienced lames authorisarions at a task level on other aircraft types. For example, a lame exercising the privileges of a type under a company authorisation will already have an A licence but no authority unless the individual has a task level authority for such things as a wheel change or fluid replenishment. It is not a type rating, it merely allows a lame with a full type, who has been trained for a particular task to do that task and certify it on a type they do not have. It doesn't allow for trouble shooting, interpretation of a defect or certification or supervision of others work on that task. This is what the A licence is designed for, the A licence task extension to an ame is quite a different path and a difficult feat. It would hardly be worth the effort for an organisation to design and approve a process that gives any more value than merely using the A licences you already have wih your current lames. You would gain more productivity from each individual, which would drive less overall headcount, rather than still having half unproductive skilled staff and half productive unskilled staff. My take anyway, shoot me down....

[going postal]

I think you might find the ames at Qantas are over qualified and that Qantas management are aiming further down the food chain for Cat A applicants. Could it be they are using it to play the unions off against each other, surely not!!!!

[nelbhoy]

Fight this tooth and nail Steve.
In the UK, before the introduction of the "A" license the industry was struggling to recruit licensed engineers. There was 2 ways to go:
1. Make the Licensed Engineer position more attractive to future generations by investing in the industry and paying a salary reflecting the responsibility that goes with signing off a multi million pound aircraft full of hundreds of people.

or

2. Bring in un-qualified sometimes un-traded workers to the industry pay them way less than licensed guys, give them a couple of years experience on the shop floor (usually stuck in holds or in the cabin) and then allow them to hold a company authorisation which gives them most of the stamping power that a full licensed engineer studied years for. They then have the carrot of a B license position hanging over them in a few years for a salary £20000GBP less than than a properly experienced and traded engineer.
Guess which option the CAA went with!!
Oh and if your British Airways strike a deal with the UK CAA that allow's that company authorisation to be converted to a full EASA Cat A license.
The result? Well in the UK far more A licensed guys than fully licensed engineers. Salaries stagnating or dropping by as much as 25% and morale at an all time low. And they wonder why they still can't recruit "good guys"

[nelbhoy]

In UK the management at BA spoke of a "pyramid model" which instead of having say 5 Licensed blokes a shift in charge of 3 or 4 guys each, they gradually changed it to only 1 Licensed engineer in charge of 2 or 3 A licensed guys who in turn were in charge of 7 or 8 mechs and 3 or 4 contractors.
It resulted in items being stamped blindly because the licensed guy at the top did not have anywhere near the time needed to oversee this amount of work. Plus the fact there was so much paperwork to deal with his arse was permanently on a chair stuck in the office.
I saw guys leaving the industry because they could not keep up due to the pressure and stress levels being just too high.
So much for Human Factors!

[airsupport]

Steve,

I think you already know my feelings about this ridiculous A Licence, one of the worst things EVER to happen in the Industry, and I am glad I am retired now and will not have to see it.

This Union thing is almost as ridiculous, the Craft Unions are saying that these AMEs are just going to be AMEs with a Licence, okay, well using that logic (as you know) I was an Apprentice AME for 5 years, then an AME just for a few months until I was granted my first Licence ( a real one NOT an A Licence off the weetbix box) which I then held for more than 40 years.

So I guess you could say I was an AME that held a Licence (real one) for some 40 years, I feel guilty now for being in the ALAEA all those decades. ;)

[Kiwiconehead]

Spot on Airsupport.

I'm an AME with a (L)icence, that's why they call me a LAME.

I know who my money goes to in case sh!t happens

[Redstone]

How did it go in the ACTU meeting FedSec?
No doubt Shorten and Cameron will be applying pressure.

[buttmonkey1]

Shorten FFS :yuk:

[TIMA9X]

Shorten FFSVideo posted without comment.;) (for those who haven't seen it.)

GFELLK8htKM

[QF94]

How are you able to comment on that? Wot she said!

Ahhh well. There goes the country.

[gobbledock]

Shorten is a toad. So is Gillard, Combet and any other former Union brother who turns their back on the Union to become a rectum licking politician.
It is time to bring the house of cards down....

This is all the motivation I need-
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQW6VDBh6czvh03WR5H7bj_4x67nRRzQcfaKYrXOwT Ts2tC5ivK6w

Caption - "God damn these are heavier than my April bonus'!!

[QF94]

@gobbledock

It is time to bring the house of cards down....

Any day now. Any day.........

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

How did it go in the ACTU meeting FedSec?




The ACTU are well aware of which unions pay the most in affiliation fees.

They are also equally aware of the danger posed by a union official who is not a Labor party member and is a free agent when it comes to what is said in the press.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Options for tomorrow prior to Dick Smith run.


a) send meaningless politically correct email to other unions to ensure my career in politics is not in jeopardy (danger that email may be meaningless and not in interest of members)

or

b) send email in plain english using words we would use on shop floor (danger that uni grad union leaders may not understand language and send straight to Murdoch press for interpretation)

[Worrals in the wilds]

The ACTU are well aware of which unions pay the most in affiliation fees.
Are they aware that a lot of rank and file members who pay those fees (via membership) are starting to wonder what the ACTU has done for them lately? Or are they basking in a self generated, self satisfied glow of perceived awesomeness? :hmm:

Guess the membership figures will show that, and the public trustability surveys :eek:

Shorten, Thomson and friends are doing the movement more harm than bloody Howard. :ugh:

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Trolls and ungrateful tools.

As a non Engineer, watching from the outside, I would say Steve P has done a stirling job.

He made the EMT looks like exactly what they are, and now the public knows.

Those who do not like what he has done have one of two options, nominate themselves as a union rep and have a crack themselves or shut up.

It amazes me how people will criticise when someone makes a stand, yet they don't have the stones to have a go themselves.

Good job Steve, do not listen to these retards.

To the nut less wonders, give yourself an upper cut from me.

As Steve P and many other have said, Gillard is a Liberal in Labor clothes, the Carbon Tax has sunk her battleship.

But who to replace her, Abbott, Hockey ?. I'd sooner vote for the teletubbies.

[hotnhigh]

Cargo, What time does the 4 o'clock train arrive?:ugh:

Perhaps Steve has been a bit busy with other matters?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-04/qantas-to-be-fined-over-bullying-judgment/3992950:D

[ranmar850]

They, together, all make a good case for non-compulsory voting. To paraphrase something old, what if they held an election and nobody showed up?

[TIMA9X]

If you are a member of the ALAEA, have you considered making a simple phone call to the office? I'm sure you will be able to speak personally with one of the execs or industrial officers and have any query answered!
Hit the nail on the head Talkwrench

SP & his team are one of the most approachable union executives to get information straight from the horses mouth, nothing is a problem. SP has indeed done a sterling job on here. I wish some other union executives took a leaf out of SPs book and communicate to the members via forums similar to this.

As for Bill Shorten, he is false and is in this for himself in my view, he used the union movement to get a leg up in the Labor Party for a shot at being PM one day, nothing more.

He supported the mind boggling (lawyer fest) FWA legislation that is a reworded "Work Choices" the Liberals wanted, and has used it against the very people he once represented, the union movement, plain a simple really..

BS, suitable initials for the man.
JZfaSdHBiA0

.

[Cargo744]

It's so funny when people don't want to listen to an alternate view. Hope you had a nice little march after deleting my posts. I'm sure that you're happy with your queen! Grow up.

[Talkwrench]

Ok Ok sorry mods. Back on topic:

AWU/AMWU/CEPU traditionally cover the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) classifications.

ALAEA traditionally cover the Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) classifications. They currently cover the CASA category 'B1', 'B2' and 'C' LAME classifications.

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Can any ppruners explain to me why CASA category 'A' LAME Job Classification should be covered by any union other than the ALAEA?

[ACT Crusader]

Ok Ok sorry mods. Back on topic:

AWU/AMWU/CEPU traditionally cover the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) classifications.

ALAEA traditionally cover the Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) classifications. They currently cover the CASA category 'B1', 'B2' and 'C' LAME classifications.

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Can any ppruners explain to me why CASA category 'A' LAME Job Classification should be covered by any union other than the ALAEA?


Hey talkwrench unless I'm mistaken aren't we talking about Category A AMEs, rather than LAMEs? Hence the other unions beef.

[Talkwrench]

Hi ACT Crusader:

Hey talkwrench unless I'm mistaken aren't we talking about Category A AMEs, rather than LAMEs? Hence the other unions beef.

There is no such thing as a Category A AME.

This is my understanding of the key difference between AME and LAME:

If you don't have a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C) then you are an AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer)

When you have met CASA's requirements and are issued with a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C), you then become a LAME (Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).

ALAEA covers LAME's. AMWU/AWU/CEPU covers AME's.

If you have a Licence, you're a LAME.

If you don't have a Licence, you're an AME.

Seems quite clear to me. What do you think?

[Syd eng]

There is no such thing as a Category A AME.

This is my understanding of the key difference between AME and LAME:

If you don't have a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C) then you are an AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer)

When you have met CASA's requirements and are issued with a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C), you then become a LAME (Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).

ALAEA covers LAME's. AMWU/AWU/CEPU covers AME's.

If you have a Licence, you're a LAME.

If you don't have a Licence, you're an AME.

Seems quite clear to me. What do you think?

Well Said!

[airsupport]

Yes, it seems quite clear to me too, IF you have ANY Licence issued by CASA you are an LAME and IF you wish to be in a Union/Association then it would/should be the ALAEA. :ok:

IF you do NOT have a Licence issued by CASA then you are what is now called an AME, this term applies now to anyone that works on the aircraft and is NOT Licenced.

I was near the end of my Apprenticeship when the ALAEA was started (1967 from memory) and joined the ALAEA as soon as I was Licenced in early 1969.

I always understood you could only be in the ALAEA if you were Licenced however I just read somewhere that the ALAEA does also cover some AMEs too, is this true Steve??? :confused:

[Jethro Gibbs]

WRONG ALAEA ccovers both see Forstaff Avalon and has done since the begining ALAEA even had WM sitting in with forstaff manager during interviews.:ok:
WM now Forstaffs head kicker.

[airsupport]

Just found another site with info on the ALAEA, seems it is much more diverse than I realised all the 40 something years I have been in it. :confused:

(QUOTE)

About ALAEA

The ALAEA is a federally registered Australian organisation that represents the industrial, technical and professional interests of Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) and other civil aircraft maintenance workers.

The desire to establish the ALAEA arose in the late fifties; the association was registered in 1967 in order for LAMEs to control the future of their profession. Today the ALAEA is a very successful organisation and a key player in aviation industrial issues.

ALAEA membership includes most LAMEs employed in regular public transport and regional airlines, and has widespread coverage of LAMEs and AMEs in General Aviation. Also currently membership extends to Technical Officers, Maintenance Planners Instructors, Librarians, Trades Assistants, Aircraft Tradespersons Sheetmetal workers and other aircraft maintenance personnel and support staff. Current membership is in excess of 4,000.

The Association is non-political. There are no affiliations with any political party and members are not permitted to use the Association for political purposes.

A liaison is maintained, where necessary, with all political parties and, if the need arises, the Association will lobby either Government or Opposition members to further the interests of all the ALAEA?s members.

The ALAEA is a pre-eminent aviation industry organisation that is actively involved in civil aviation regulatory issues and liases actively with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) including participating as a member of the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC).

[airsupport]

Thanks to Google I just found out that ALAEA covers a lot more than I realised it did. ;) :ok:

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

ALAEA HAWAIIAN SEA SALT

Alaea is the traditional Hawaiian table salt used to season and preserve. It is non-processed and rich in trace minerals, all of which are found in sea water. A small amount of harvested reddish volcanic baked clay enriches the salt with iron oxide. Used as a rub on red meat, the clay seals in the moisture while roasting.

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

Sorry Mods a little off topic, but a little humour is surely way better than Politics. :ok:

[ACT Crusader]

Thanks for the explanation talkwrench. It seems to me that there are two issues at play here - the ALAEA rules and the CASA regulations

From the ALAEA rules


3.1 The Association shall consist of an unlimited number of persons employed or usually employed as engineers licensed to undertake, supervise and certify the maintenance of any one or more of the components, items of equipment, and/or systems (including associated equipment) in the airframes, engines, electrical systems, radio systems,and/or instrument systems on aircraft operating within the Commonwealth of Australia, its Territories and/or overseas from the Commonwealth of Australia

3.2 And any persons employed by Forstaff Pty Ltd or its subsidiaries or successors who perform, administer, or work in connection with, the refurbishment, reconfiguration or heavy maintenance work on aircraft at Avalon Airport in the State of Victoria, excluding persons employed in the occupation, industry or calling of storeworker.


The interpretation of those rules may be what's in dispute between the "rival unions", in particular 3.1.

Again my understanding is that the CASA stuff relates to the changes brought in last year as outlined on this link
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100056/part66booklet.pdf

[Talkwrench]

ACT Crusader,

I had a look at the link you provided and it confirms to me that the Category A Licence is indeed a Licence issued by CASA, therefore making the recipient of a Category A Licence a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME).

The LAME should then be covered by the union that covers LAMEs - The ALAEA.

Is that not a reasonable position to take?

[Longbow25]

Certainly is, provided you are not one of the craft unions looking to keep a foothold in an industry you care nothing about.

From the ACTU point of view it may simply be a matter of supporting one of their major benefactors.

It all depends on your point of view but as a LAME I know what I believe should happen.

Craft unions represent the AME's and those who certify are represented by the ALAEA.

Lets see what the courts say.

[LHLisa]

I think sunfish is very correct likely about the world changing, and us the serfs rising up against our masters . Like i said somewhere else here. Capitalism is about the trickle down process. The rich "tinkle" all over us the working class, and we should thank them and be grateful.

If labor and some union leaders would stop acting like a bunch of spoilt brat bully children and support one another , who knows what could happen? Crazy idea.

[ACT Crusader]

ACT Crusader,

I had a look at the link you provided and it confirms to me that the Category A Licence is indeed a Licence issued by CASA, therefore making the recipient of a Category A Licence a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME).

The LAME should then be covered by the union that covers LAMEs - The ALAEA.

Is that not a reasonable position to take?

I'm just trying to understand the issues better before I could say if it's reasonable or not. I'm an IR tragic and over a number of years have found union coverage disputes intriguing.

While i was looking at one of the union websites recently I found a link to the QF engineers Alliance and questioned why ALAEA was not involved when many of the "principles" at least we're akin to the ALAEA arguments during last years bargaining. And my first thought was that there was an issue boiling under the surface.

But this issue of coverage isn't new. Back in 2010 ALAEA applied to Fair Work to get its rules changed but nothing occurred according to the ALAEA rules (no changes since 2005). I'm not claiming to know all the facts but something seems amiss with this whole issue.

http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/106/20100527_Notice_All_Members__ALAEA_Rule_Change.pdf

http://www.e-airc.gov.au/107n/rules

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I can make it easier for you and your search. Our rules can be interpretted in various ways. The AME unions are trying to grab additional members and they particulalrly think they will become more "powerful" if they have certification rights. The contentious part of the rules is this bit -

employed or usually employed as engineers licensed to undertake, supervise and certify the maintenance of any one or more of the


The AME unions are reading this as you must do all 3 things to qualify to join the ALAEA. That is, undertake, supervise and certify all at once. The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise.

The ALAEA claims that the rules should not be read that way and certainly were not designed as such in 1960 becasue there was no such thing as a LAME who could not sign for others. I won't state our whole case here but essentially we say that the words mean that you must do one of the 3. That is Supervise, certify or be licenced to undertake. The "and" in the rules should be read or considered as an "or".

Similar to Painters and Dockers. You didn't need to be a painter as well as a docker, just one of them. We have LAMEs at Qantas today that do not undertake maintenance, they just Supervise. We have those that do not certify, they work in Maintenance watch. We have those that do not Supervise others, they work in outstations.

All LAMEs who certify, supervise. LAMEs self supervise a task much the same way as an accountant will supervise the books of a business. The matter is a complicated one but at the end of the day, if Engineers want to join a better union, nothing should prevent them doing it.

[ACT Crusader]

Cheers Fed Sec. I'm guessing it's a sensitive period now, but as the Hannan article said the unions are taking you to FWA to get orders against ALAEA. Will anything actually come or can I suspect that the ACTU 'nipped that in the bud', not wanting a blue with all the HSU drama and Congress up in less than a fortnight.

The silence from Qantas on this is somewhat deafening also....

[aveng]

The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise.

I wonder if it could be successfully argued that an "A licence" person would be required to "supervise" the refuelling during a normal transit. Engineers have not been actually doing the switching at the refuel panel for some time now.

[QF94]

Quote:
The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise. I wonder if it could be successfully argued that an "A licence" person would be required to "supervise" the refuelling during a normal transit. Engineers have not been actually doing the switching at the refuel panel for some time now.

The "switching" has not been part of our job for years now. We get a pre-fuel/provisional and give the figure to the refueller. Once we get a final fuel figure, we then give that to the refueller. The refueller then advises us when the fuelling has stopped at the final figure. We then contact the cockpit and see if they're happy with the fuel. Once we get the OK from the cockpit, we tell the refueller and they print off a receipt. We calculate the fuel uplift and give the flight crew a receipt and a copy of the fuel calculations.

We, as engineers do not and are not required to supervise the refuelling during transits. This task belongs to the refueller. Our job is to ensure the correct figure is given to the refueller, and that we have put enough fuel on board. We touch no switches on QANTAS aircraft.

In short aveng, I can't see how it would be possible to argue that a Cat A licence would be required to supervise the refuelling during normal transits. But, I am no legal expert, and it could be interpreted differently.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Interesting discussion on the fuelling. I note that you have naturally characterised it the way we interpret it.

We, as engineers do not and are not required to supervise the refuelling during transits.



The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

[listentome]

The way the manufacturer intended, the crew. The AMM is for Maint activity not aircraft operation.

[airsupport]

Okay, I know, I am a Dinosaur :rolleyes:, I just can NOT believe how much things have changed since my time as a LAME. :(

NO refueller would EVER touch any switches on an aircraft I was looking after, unless I asked them to.

And this A Licence, well if I tell you what I really think of that I would be banned from PPRuNe. ;)

IF as has just been pointed out the A Licence holder can NOT certify for work done by others then it is basically just an MA, IF they still call them that, however to hold an MA in the Good Olde days you had to be a (full) LAME anyway. :confused:

[QF94]

@ Fedsec

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

If the refuelling becomes a maintenance task that requires troubleshooting, we as LAME's then take over the switching and transferring. The refueller's task is to control the ON/OFF switch at the fuelling truck. Also, if we have to transfer fuel from tail to centre tanks or centre to wing tanks due to fuel loading for a particular flight, we then control the fuelling panel on the aircraft.

I guess you could draw a parallel to the upcoming MoD. AME/LAME doesn't arrive aircraft. Baggage handler does. If there's a problem, then LAME is called out to rectify it, then baggage handler departs aircraft.

To summarise, you could say we have introduced a middle-man to do a job that was already being done quite efficiently and without misinterpretation of a pending problem.

@ airsupport

Okay, I know, I am a Dinosaur :rolleyes:, I just can NOT believe how much things have changed since my time as a LAME. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

NO refueller would EVER touch any switches on an aircraft I was looking after, unless I asked them to.

I don't know how long you've been out of the game, but this is how it's been for a number of years now. Unfortunately, we have more than willing "colleagues" who will do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves by making things work, then get a spot in the offices behind H271 or Admin1. A recent Federal Court case that QANTAS has lost, is proof in the pudding of the QANTAS of today.

[airsupport]

I don't know how long you've been out of the game, but this is how it's been for a number of years now. Unfortunately, we have more than willing "colleagues" who will do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves by making things work, then get a spot in the offices behind H271 or Admin1.

Yes it has been a few years now, actually more than a few, and I was never with Qantas so I am not sure how things work now or in the past there.

It is just so sad to see the way the Industry has gone now, these ridiculous lower standard Licences, not supervising refuelling, and even NOT doing turnrounds and even meeting Aircraft, NEVER happened in my day anywhere in Australia that had LAMEs based there, and even many other parts of the World with Aussie registered Aircraft. :{

Well except for a couple of times back in the early 1970s when I slept in for an 0300 start, luckily the Porters and Fuellers looked after the freighter those mornings. ;)

[QF94]

Well except for a couple of times back in the early 1970s when I slept in for an 0300 start, luckily the Porters and Fuellers looked after the freighter those mornings. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Sooooooo, you're the one responsible for what we have now. See, that's all it takes. One person to sleep in and the whole industry goes to the packs.;)

[airsupport]

Sooooooo, you're the one responsible for what we have now. See, that's all it takes. One person to sleep in and the whole industry goes to the packs.

That's right, blame the Old Guy. :(

Actually it was well covered up, and ONLY you and I know about it here now, so do NOT tell anyone else. ;)

[aveng]

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

I too am a LAME @ Qantas. I was indeed refering to the supervising the task not the refueller. I always supervise the refuelling (old school), seen too many f@#k ups over the years. Perhaps referring to the refuel manual wording would clear this up. The refueller is suppose to get clearance from the transit engineer before fuelling commences ie. if there are defects - this could be regarded as some sort of supervision.

[hadagutfull]

As I recall, a lame still certifies that the refueling was carried out as per QF procedures... Covering water drain requirements etc.
I believe the refuel agent is only permitted to use the auto function of the system. If any defect arises or is known with the system, it's engineerings responsibility to take over.

As for CAT A.. Supervise or not, if a cat A certifies a document with a licence number , he assumes full responsibility as would any LAME.
The only ones who are issued a cat A at the moment are LAMES. I know of no AME that has one.. Therefore if it appears on a licence, it's ALAEA TERRITORY.

Is there an AULAEA- Australian unlicensed aircraft engineers association ?

[QF94]

To clarify my earlier posts. The refueller does NOT start fuelling until given a pre-fuel/provisional fuel load, and does NOT disconnect until we give him/her the OK to do so. Yes, the refueller is only allowed to refuel in AUTO mode. No individual tank can be selected for refuelling purposes.

To use the definition of "supervise" would be to stand with the refueller the whole time during fuelling operations. In a normal transit, this would be next to impossible.

For example, a 1 1/2 hour turnaround on a 747 with two engineers doing the transit couldn't be done, particularly on LAX or JNB sectors. What with arriving the aircraft, connecting ground power and external air as required, doing walkaround inspections, engine oils, going upstairs checking cabin and flight logs and doing a cabin check. Should there be a wheel change, how many people are you going to get so you can supervise the refuelling which can take up to an hour if there's only one truck to refuel?

There is a difference between checking the fuel panel at the end of refuelling to ensure the switches are off, fuelling connector covers refitted and fuel panel cover closed, and to supervise the refuelling operation in its entirety. A bit like AME supervision if carried out as it is intended. 1 LAME to 1 AME.

[rmm]

As I understand it, the Cat A can do a wheel and brake change amongst other things. Most larger aircraft would require two people to this. If an apprentice or another AME was assigned to help would the Cat A not be supervising? This then raises the question as to how the second person signs the paperwork as he/she was involved in the job but the Cat A cannot certify for such actions.

[Oh Me Oh My]

QF94

(1) a refueller cannot begin fuelling without an LAMEs permission to start which involves said engineers confirming the serviceability of the fuelling system.
Therefore a LAME must supervise refuelling also he signs off on a preflight which includes refuelling.

(2) supervision can be defined as overseeing the aurcraft operations, direct supervision is .
standing with the refueller.

(3) refuelling was always carried by the LAME it was rationalised to allow one man transit

[airsupport]

Okay, from what is posted here the Old Guy is getting confused again. :confused:

IF what has been posted here IS true, it seems to me that this new CASA Issued A Licence is in place of the old CASA issued MA (Maintenance Authority) which enabled you to sign for certain things you were NOT actually Licenced on.

Over the decades I had a few of those, one for example for FDRs and even one for an Engine Type, however I had a FULL Licence on those Aircraft, and I had to do the work could NOT just certify for someone else.

[QF94]

Oh Me Oh My,

Having been a LAME that used to physically carry out the refuelling at the aircraft fuel panel, I'm very aware that was our job and still sign off on it.

One man transits, at this stage ( and has been for some time) will be for domestics. That's still a sticking point on the international side of things.

You make an observation about two types of observation. Yes there is direct and yes there is supervision of the overall operation. You can have direct supervision and prevent something happening, or supervise something from a distance and see it go pear shaped. Either way you have supervised the operation.

The term supervision was/has been used very loosely on this thread.

[ACT Crusader]

Is there an AULAEA- Australian unlicensed aircraft engineers association ?

Yes it would seem there is - the AWU and AMWU..... :)

[ACT Crusader]

The term supervision was/has been used very loosely on this thread.

And this seems to be one of the key issues in dispute and may well require some form of legal ruling/precedent to resolve it once and for all.

Can it be successfully argued that completion of a task is also the supervision of that very same task?

[QF94]

Can it be successfully argued that completion of a task is also the supervision of that very same task?

"The CASR Dictionary contains the following meaning of supervising:

A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:


is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out. "
I believe I mentioned something along these lines earlier, but not in the same words. The above definition was taken from the CASA website in the FAQ section for Part 66 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 66 questions & answers (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100679)

Getting back to the point about fuelling, the refueller signs no paperwork for the task of refuelling an aeroplane, other than he/she has supplied the fuel as required. The engineer signs the receipt saying all is well together with the check sheets for the transit.

When the task is signed off, the LAME in charge is verifying that all the work has been carried out. The LAME hasn't necessarily supervised the task or even been at the aeroplane. The LAME signing off on each individual task takes the responsibility for ensuring each task is completed IAW the applicable AMM's.

[Talkwrench]

ACT Crusader:

Is there an AULAEA- Australian unlicensed aircraft engineers association ?
Yes it would seem there is - the AWU and AMWU.....

You've hit the nail the head ACT Crusader. The AWU/AMWU/CEPU is exactly and appropriately where unlicensed aircraft engineers (aka AMEs) are covered.

And this seems to be one of the key issues in dispute and may well require some form of legal ruling/precedent to resolve it once and for all.

Can it be successfully argued that completion of a task is also the supervision of that very same task?

In my very humble opinion, the key fact of the issue is that the holder of a Category A Licence is a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) and therefore, the appropriate union to cover them is the ALAEA.

I believe this fact will, in the end, be the key determinant in the resolution of this case. I see any other arguments as diversionary to this basic fact.

[Wellwellwell]

A lame signing for a fuel uplift is a Qantas process, not a regulatory requirement. Wake up.

[600ft-lb]

Lames dont sign for a fuel uplift, the pilots do.

Ames or Lames,the bloke down the street or pilots can carry out the discrepancy calculations, the pilot in command or designate has to accept it. Just because sometimes there is no effective means of communications to the refueler it falls to the person doing the transit check of the aircraft to pass it on. Sometimes the lame needs to inform the refueler

There is nothing stopping qantas replacing the term 'LAME' in the policy and procedures to 'Appropriately Trained Person' like they have done with the towing, to any procedure, so at the end of the day unless it's written in law, it's their train set.

But this isn't the argument, who does what, it's an introduction by CASA of a restricted licence and qantas doing deals with the AWU,AMWU and ETU to devise a way to cover this new employee.

Seems cut and dry to a common sense point of view. Seeing as they will be issued with a licence from CASA what case do the unlicenced engineers have. If the privilege were extended by virtue of having an AME trade certificate then different story.

[airsupport]

Okay, Steve (the FedSec) has taken the time to explain it all to me, for which I thank him. :ok:

It is obvious when you know how it works that the CASA issued A Licence IS a genuine Licence and anyone that holds it should be in the ALAEA if they want to. :ok:

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Correct me if things have changed since I was on the tarmac. I know that as a LAME I was required to sign a transit check sheet certifying that the fuel was uplifted IAW the aircraft fuelling manual and Qantas procedures. This was for 744, 767 and A330. Some of the actual tasks were performed by others but I took responsibility by signing the check sheet.

[QF94]

@Fedsec

Correct me if things have changed since I was on the tarmac. I know that as a LAME I was required to sign a transit check sheet certifying that the fuel was uplifted IAW the aircraft fuelling manual and Qantas procedures. This was for 744, 767 and A330. Some of the actual tasks were performed by others but I took responsibility by signing the check sheet.

This is still the case. The flight crew sign for accepting the fuel on the fuel distribution sheet of which they keep the original, and we sign on our check sheets that we have done the fuelling IAW the Fuelling manual, QF procedures etc.

[booglaboy]

A380 can be included in that list also

[ACT Crusader]

While we're talking about the AWU, this from their website today.

--------------------------------------
Skilled defence jobs must be retained

9 May 2012

The Federal Government's decision to retire the RAAF's fleet of C-130H Hercules aircraft early, as part of the Budget defence cuts, has put the long-term future of 250 workers at the RAAF Richmond base at risk.

AWU National Secretary Paul Howes today said the union was concerned for the working future of the highly-trained employees and contractors of Qantas Defence Services who maintain the C-130H Hercules aircraft.

"The union has spoken to the Federal Government and Qantas today to find out exactly what the Government's budget announcement means for the aircraft maintenance workforce at Richmond.

"We have been assured that no immediate jobs will be lost as a result of the announcement.

"We will now work closely with the Department of Defence and Qantas Defence Services to ensure minimum disruption to workers at the Richmond base as the aircraft are phased out of operation."

Mr Howes said Australia's skilled workforce was essential to our national defence capabilities.

"The Department of Defence must find alternative aircraft maintenance work for the Richmond base so that Australia does not lose access to the highly-trained workforce that has been developed at Richmond over many years."

"The skilled workers at RAAF Base Richmond need to have regular work, otherwise they will be lost to other industries.

"The AWU will not stand by and see the jobs sacrificed, and these capabilities lost."
---------------------------------------

[TIMA9X]

"The AWU will not stand by and see the jobs sacrificed, and these capabilities lost."Its becoming an epidemic loss for our skills base in Australian aviation....

eUSEX7UkjoQ


.

[Sunfish]

ALAEA Fed. Sec., I have something to share with you.

I know its off topic, but do you have any idea of the damage Craig Thompson and his mate Williamson have done to the Labor movement?

People everywhere are asking these questions:

How many more turds are there who formerly or currently manage unions?

How many former union turds have made it into State and Federal Parliament?

Just how corrupt is the Labor Party, both at State and Federal level?

Who knew, and when did they know it?

Why are ALL Labor politicians former union apparatchicks or lawyers who have never worked on the tools even for a day?

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be wiped out at the next Federal Election?

Do you understand that Abbot is then going to take a blunt and rusty knife to the management of unions and permanently castrate them?

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be unelectable until it gets rid of the corrupt branch stacking ethnically driven, tribal behaviour it is currently displaying, especially in the NSW cesspool?

Do you understand that all your good work on behalf of LAME's is now totally and comprehensively in vain? Qantas is going to get exactly what it wants.

I'd welcome your comments.

[ampclamp]

sunny , despite some of the loopier policies the greens are the only party with any ticker and consistency of policy. if it means voting for them to protect my living / job and pay rates I will do it. they wont win many in the lower house but senate has the last say. So they cant create much legislation but can vet and modify the more draconian stuff Abbott will have free reign to do soon. I would love to see an aviation based senate ticket run next time. Run on protection of the local industry, skilled jobs, sewing the balls back onto CASA, getting rid of the ticket clippers making big bucks while the industry suffers, upgrading infrastructure and nav aids etc.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Firstly I ask our good moderators for some leniency here. This will move a little political but the thread is a debate about the unions that represent aviation workers and how they are controlled and this does reach to the party system and will affect us all.

I know its off topic, but do you have any idea of the damage Craig Thompson and his mate Williamson have done to the Labor movement?


They have broken it to a point that it will take years to rebuild.

How many more turds are there who formerly or currently manage unions?


I know at least one.

How many former union turds have made it into State and Federal Parliament?


Who knows. Maybe about the same amount of former corporate turds that infect the Liberal party. They come out of the same mould.

Just how corrupt is the Labor Party, both at State and Federal level?


I think not corrupt but it seems that unethical practices have become accepted, its not just Labor though it is society in general. Take a look at News Limited and the phone tapping scandal.

Who knew, and when did they know it?


The problems with the HSU were known some time ago by lots of people but the exact details were unknown. Really, they still are. Who knows who recieved the services of prostitutes on the credit card, we can all suspect but the bloke is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a fundemental right in our society.

Why are ALL Labor politicians former union apparatchicks or lawyers who have never worked on the tools even for a day?


I think you will find that Doug Cameron worked for many years so this isn't entirely correct.

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be wiped out at the next Federal Election?


Sure do. It appears that there are only about 72 people who can't see it coming.

Do you understand that Abbot is then going to take a blunt and rusty knife to the management of unions and permanently castrate them?


Yep. It will be carnage.

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be unelectable until it gets rid of the corrupt branch stacking ethnically driven, tribal behaviour it is currently displaying, especially in the NSW cesspool?


Yep and it will be a long time. I occassionally sit with these young Labor upstarts and they have no comprehension of what the ordinary person thinks. It is as if there is a fantasy world that has been created for them where they have been given a birthright to absolute power. It disgusts me.


Do you understand that all your good work on behalf of LAME's is now totally and comprehensively in vain? Qantas is going to get exactly what it wants.


It won't all be for nothing. If we can save one Australian job that would have otherwise been lost if there were no barriers, we are better off. The work our union has done in the last 6 years has saved jobs, extended careers, provided better remuneration and rosters. The future will be tough battling the airline, the Monk and the destruction to the Labor movement caused by the selfish few.

I guess my job would be boring if it had no challenges. At least you know I will be working for my pay cheque.

[hewlett]

As usual, well put FedSec. Appreciate your efforts. Steve and Goliath comes to mind.

[1746]

Well said Steve!!!!:ok:

[ACT Crusader]

Sunfish - Senator Sterle was a truckie before becoming a TWU official, and there are a few others that worked up the ranks so to speak.

HSU has been dire for years. Kathy Jackson's ex has a lot to answer in my view....

In relation to your last question and as Fed Sec noted, in my view any good work by unions for the interest of members and industry is still 'good work' regardless of what is happening around them. Sure every time Dave Oliver in his new role as ACTu Sec is going to have to answer questions about this stuff and defend the cause, but that won't diminish some of the other good work that unions do.

Greater transparency in business, including union business can inly be a good thing.

[Worrals in the wilds]

...but that won't diminish some of the other good work that unions do. In an ideal world. In the unideal real world a lot of people are seeing the whole movement as one big rort, which is untrue. :sad:

Remember what happened to Catholic priests? Mention the two words and all most people say is 'child molester.' That's unfair, because most priests aren't child molesters, but that's what people think. Ask my cousin, he is a priest who no longer wears a dog collar in public because he's sick of the verbal abuse. And no, before anyone asks; he's not a child molester. He was a missionary, a tireless worker for the needy here and in many foreign countries, a great administrator and a damned good bloke, but all he hears in public if he's wearing 'uniform' are the words 'kid :mad:er.'

Mud sticks, and the mud Thomson and Co have dredged up for their own petty, puny and despicable goals has stuck to everyone in the union movement. :ugh:

Every honest person who wears the Eureka flag and works tirelessly for their members is copping abuse thanks to these self serving pricks. Try getting people to part with their hard earned cash for a membership when all they see on the news is Thomson's credit receipts. Oh, that's right, he's innocent until proven guilty. Maybe his dog borrowed his credit card, forged his signature and had a big night on the town :mad:. No-one's buying it.

Whether through ignorance or inaction the ACTU has allowed this to happen, and they deserve a group pineappling for that. It happened on their watch.
I occasionally sit with these young Labor upstarts and they have no comprehension of what the ordinary person thinks. It is as if there is a fantasy world that has been created for them where they have been given a birthright to absolute power. It disgusts me.Agreed. First to the wall, the little toerags. They saw a buck in the labour rights 'business' and snouted their way to the trough. Not one of the little bastards has ever worked a year of their lives. Not one of them has served customers, dug holes, driven vans or fixed stuff for a living, apart from the odd student job between lectures. There's nothing wrong with going to uni (I've done it, paid for it and was grateful for the opportunity) but it's not being a worker. It's not the same as doing a job effectively for twenty years and now hoping like hell you don't get punted because you're the wrong side of fifty, only got to junior because the family needed you to earn, and have trouble getting the hang of all this new computer stuff. :(

Then they have the nerve to claim they're 'for the workers.' Grow the :mad: up, the workers aren't stupid and don't buy a word of it.

The HSU has handed a whopping big advantage to the Liberal Party and the anti union brigade, and all for drinks and prostitutes. What a great achievement. What a great step forward for worker rights. What a bunch of :mad:heads.

[airsupport]

Yes, as usual, very well said Steve. :ok:

One thing I am curious about now, regardless of your and any other individuals personal political leanings I always understood the ALAEA was NOT aligned with any Political Party, is that true? :confused:

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

We have a 20 person Executive and not one of us is a member of any political party. We don't donate to them and we refuse to be pushed around by them.

Come election day I will man a polling booth handing out how to vote leaflets for the people we think will serve LAMEs best in the upcoming period. Looks like next election day I will be heading to South Australia to help Nick.

[airsupport]

Thank you. :ok:

I was sure it was like that back in the Olde Days, glad it still is. :ok:

Also agree about Nick, about the ONLY Politician I have any time for. :ok:

[Sunfish]

....and to cap it all, I just received the latest gossip from Canberra, that a certain Ministers wife and kids have just moved out of the family house after he got his PA pregnant. They moved in with her Mum.

Not that there isn't a womaniser among the Liberal leadership.

Is it something in the water in Canberra?

[Redpanda]

And her Mum happens to be the G-G..............

[ACT Crusader]

Did anyone catch Kelty's speech last night. A plain straight talker is Kelty but still has the vision.


Just an update. There will be an ACTU meeting today to discuss this contentious issue. For Tech and Cabin Crew wondering what this is all about I will explain briefly.


I'm guessing the meeting a couple of weeks ago with the ACTU didn't resolve anything because the Fair Work Australia website is saying there is a hearing today?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Today was a directions hearing. Some timelines were set by the Commissioner. Qantas of course being represented by Freehills had to stick their nose in and will be siding with the non aviation specific unions. They would prefer to deal with people who know nothing about our industry.

[airsupport]

I guess Qantas Management are happier dealing with people similar to themselves, that is ones that obviously know very little about Aviation. ;) :ok:

[QF94]

@airsupport

I guess Qantas Management are happier dealing with people similar to themselves, that is ones that obviously know very little about Aviation. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Why would QF Management deal with anyone else? One pack of know nothings dealing with another pack of know nothings. Anyone who thinks differently to them are cast aside as "not understanding" the importance of QANTAS's survival as they do.

[Redstone]

All qantas ame's out there should ask themselves two basic questions, why are management trying soooo hard to have this dealt with through the craft unions? And based on that, who is going to get a better deal? Think about it and lobby your local reps.

[ACT Crusader]

I know we were talking politics earlier in this thread, just had a laugh at Senator Doug Cameron saying about Enterprise Migration Agreements that "you could drive a 737 Airbus through the policy".

Once upon a time he was a union secretary responsible for workers in the industry......

[QF94]

I know we were talking politics earlier in this thread, just had a laugh at Senator Doug Cameron saying about Enterprise Migration Agreements that "you could drive a 737 Airbus through the policy".

Once upon a time he was a union secretary responsible for workers in the industry......

A few others come to mind. Greg Combet, Bob Hawke, etc etc. The union movement is usually a stepping stone into Canberra.

[rudderless1]

AWU seeks monopoly status (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/awu_seeks_monopoly_status_mtpkqEAoqLJgykAW4fobpM)

[Jethro Gibbs]

? Where are all the unions / associations they all seem to have disappeared has anyone at Tulla or Avalon even seen them in the past weeks seems like they have just given up representing there members .