When is the next cull at QF Engineering? [Archive] - Page 2

Nassensteins Monster

17th Dec 2013, 23:38

15 to go from A380. A total 150 to go from Base. The source is in the loop. It's rumoured (heard from the horses mouth) that TL favours the ALAEA's preferred years of service.

And from CT yesterday: "No decision yet" on roster alignment between the terminals and sending "20-or-so" LAMEs from each terminal to Base with the heavier 738 jobs and phase checks. Decision and announcement in Feb. Base doing the work would align us with "worlds best practice". "Have a nice Christmas guys!"

It should be a thoroughly considered decision, with all aspects of potential loss of productivity and risk to on-time performance mitigated. (Insert sarcastic response here) No-one could accuse them of rushing to a decision!

Final selection criteria is still unknown but LAMEs with 738, jetconnect & supervisory experience (whatever that means - theoretically every LAME has it) are under the gun. And again, years of service is being considered, the theory being that the "young and dynamic" will be better able to cope with the night shift and will inject some fresh blood into the Dead Men Walking.

A wide body license may on the face of it appear desirable, but there's already enough in Base (for now), so don't think the lack of one makes you safe.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the selected once the decision is made. Don't count on compromise either. Managers will be looking to the example made of GH after the Forced Leave Program.

empire4

18th Dec 2013, 01:11

QF may as well kill the apprenticeship program if they haven't already. Massive amounts of guys being driven out of the industry. I can't believe where this is heading. Aviation in Aus will be doomed for +10 years

Nassensteins Monster

18th Dec 2013, 02:19

The apprentices will become Cat A LAMEs. Ready-made strike breakers. The co. will whittle down Cat B LAMEs through redundancy and attrition and then make up Cat A to Cat B as the need arises.

buttmonkey1

18th Dec 2013, 05:01

Seems there will be plenty of eoi's from bnelmo.
Hosting those two twats from cns helped many
make the decision to take the money months ago.

Ngineer

18th Dec 2013, 05:16

Any actual figures floating around for how many to go?

Another 600 on top of the numbers they did not get last round. (based on 1000 QF staff axed).

All to be revealed in the coming months.

Bootstrap1

18th Dec 2013, 14:28

Is the 15 from 380 LAMEs or a combination of LAMEs and AMEs? 150 from base, is going to leave the place a ghost town.

Is there anymore spot at J* for those wanting a quick rescue?

Silverado

19th Dec 2013, 05:07

QF may as well kill the apprenticeship program if they haven't already.

Thats a pretty poor comment. Despite what is happening at QF, there will still be a need for young AME's in the industry in this country.

The notion of a job for life is gone. What apprentices will have (If QF continues their apprentice program) is a paid qualification and experience after 4 years, which they can take elsewhere.

Arnold E

19th Dec 2013, 08:01

Thats a pretty poor comment. Despite what is happening at QF, there will still be a need for young AME's in the industry in this country.

The notion of a job for life is gone. What apprentices will have (If QF continues their apprentice program) is a paid qualification and experience after 4 years, which they can take elsewhere.Your not fair dinkum are you??

Would you like to put that very extensive list on here perhaps?:ugh:

Silverado

20th Dec 2013, 01:38

Your not fair dinkum are you??

Would you like to put that very extensive list on here perhaps?

Believe it or not, but there is life outside of QF :rolleyes:

emergency000

20th Dec 2013, 10:28

There is indeed life after QF for AMEs. I'm living proof of that.

Flying Trades Person

24th Dec 2013, 05:07

Emergency000

mmm maybe for some but older AME's mmm

emergency000

24th Dec 2013, 06:52

FTP, that may be true, but I guess it'll ultimately come down to each individual's ability to adapt. Regional aviation or GA will be a huge shock to those who've spent the last 10+ years in the QF world, but it's not impossible.

In fact, older trades people will have the advantage of years of experience that I don't have. And, if they've been prudent, they'll have most of their CASA Basics complete and most of their SOE complete.

Either way, best of luck to all facing the axe.

Merry Christmas!

John

cvrurass

30th Dec 2013, 05:01

In order to quell the rampant sick leave burn at Avalon (Qantas Base Maintenance) , which is currently 33 days per person per year, prior to the base shut down in March, Forstaff and Qantas have offered an attendance incentive. A letter has been sent to each employee stating that THE ENTIRE WORK FORCE needs to achieve an absenteeism average below 3.85%, that is 10 days per person per year for the remaining 3 months of operation. If they can achieve this they will get 2 WHOLE weeks additional redundancy. What a joke! :yuk:

Rudder

30th Dec 2013, 05:50

The only thing that is a joke is that they even have to consider doing it. What a great work practice to convince the world (and QF) that they got it wrong.

No wonder all the operators are heading off shore for heavy maintenance.

Jethro Gibbs

30th Dec 2013, 09:59

Of course that's if they go back at all after the current shutdown .

plasticmerc

30th Dec 2013, 11:16

I work with a lot of A cat guys where I am now, the company abuses these guys almost uses them as B cat guys, running around signing dailies weeklies and other various tasks.
The A guys know this is wrong but do it because they want to be B cat guys.
I asked a A cat guy the other week ok so you have a type rating yes? yes I do ok so can you do an engine start on this a/c?
umm yes I can,.
Asked him run me through what you are going to do where switches are and what are you watching.
The blank look was worry some, (note I am a trainer here) but this guy went through someone else.
A cat guys are great to have around but they concentrate so hard on what they can do they lose thee ability to do everything else.
Under A cat lic you can't raise an MEL or an ADD, B1 B2's will always have a place on line and in a hangar just you will obviously need less of them.
Oh B2's need not worry no B1 I have met will replace you I can put my hand on my heart and say a good B2 is worth his/her weight in gold when the ****e hits the fan!
EASA has a lot to answer for it is a cheap and nasty way of getting your license.
I have met many guys who have cash go and do all B1 n B2 modules in 21 days yes they are bloody awesome they come out and they know it all.

OZ has a lot to catch up on, we all wanted EASA licenses well welcome to the land of the cheap and everything goes!

Oh EASA has now past a reg pilots can do ETOPS preflights, so all the guys doing flying spanner roles sorry.
Yes EASA we love you!!!

cvrurass

30th Dec 2013, 19:39

Avalon employees have been offered 2 weeks additional redundancy if they can keep sick leave to an average of 10 days per year per person. It is currently 33. Avalon base maintenance closes in March. What a joke.:yuk:

27/09

30th Dec 2013, 21:16

Avalon employees have been offered 2 weeks additional redundancy if they can keep sick leave to an average of 10 days per year per person. It is currently 33.

33 days per year!!!!!! That's just over 6 and a half weeks of sick leave per person. How much sick leave per year are these guys allocated?

If 33 days per year of sick leave is indicative of other productivity figures, then it's no wonder the place is being closed.

ranmar850

30th Dec 2013, 23:58

Ridiculously large averages of sick leave are generally a reflection on how people feel about their workplace--directly inverse to job satisfaction.

Jethro Gibbs

31st Dec 2013, 00:40

Bull**** guys I have worked with would not have had 30 days sick in 5 years some have 60 or more in reserve.

rammel

31st Dec 2013, 23:30

The question to ask is, what was the sick leave situation like before they announced the closure? If it was similar to now, then they've had a problem for a long time. If it has only become an issue since they announced the closure, what did they expect?

The workers may have not taken too many sick days over the years, but now there is no incentive not to take them. They're just showing the same amount of loyalty that has been shown to them.

If management could not see that this was going to happen, well they're just as thick as the rest of the management at QF.

AEROMEDIC

1st Jan 2014, 01:46

Accumulated sick eave is not paid out when any termination event occurs. This is a known amongst employees, and some will see that in order to "redeem" some of this leave, and a doctors certificate will be sought as it is a requirement to access this leave.The stress from the imminent closure might be considered enough reason for doctors to issue one, but of course, that's up to them.

It's the cost of doing business.

I would rather those that are suffering deeply from this stress, be not working on aircraft on which others are to fly.

Accumulated sick leave is a liability that bean counters hope is never paid out and this apparent "dangling carrot" is just an attempt to limit the pay out.

Flying Trades Person

8th Jan 2014, 19:06

Do you think that this is going to cause workers against worker doing this to them? Looks like it only takes a few real sick leave days and the squabble will be on?

Jethro Gibbs

8th Jan 2014, 21:41

Already has.

Flying Trades Person

10th Jan 2014, 19:57

Sorry to hear that Jethro it is a terrible move not well thought out or was it ?

Jethro Gibbs

11th Jan 2014, 07:18

The Knifes were out long before this idea the usual suspects with a f##k you jack we will do anything to put one over everyone else .

Flying Trades Person

11th Jan 2014, 22:48

Jethro must be hard working in that environment for sure.

Silverado

13th Jan 2014, 08:27

Great to see the new OPS Managers doing the rounds in SYD

I'm so glad they were able to justify the positions, given the half yearly loss and at least 1000 jobs to go.

How many Operations Managers is it, that have been recently recruited around the country? :ugh::ugh::ugh::mad:

The Ops Managers will ultimately be responsible for the performance and engagement of the teams they lead, including:

Maintaining and nurturing our safety culture.
Professional development, performance management and coaching of their teams, approval of training and resolution of any disciplinary issues
Communicating the vision and direction of the QE and Sydney Line Maintenance, and ensuring the employees under their care are engaged with our vision of being ‘best in class’.
Making customer centred decisions with delegated accountability from the Part 145 holder
Carrying out the business owner’s financial responsibility to control cost (approve overtime, set operational priorities, etc.), and providing the material support for their area of responsibility
Driving operational performance, budget performance, human factors and risk mitigation strategies
Any other duties and responsibilities required by the business

600ft-lb

13th Jan 2014, 09:46

To cut through the spin.

The ops managers are being deployed to have a layer of floor level management in place so they can sack all of the DMM's. But lets all play the game that they are there to 'supplement' the duties that the DMM already does.

CoolB1Banana

13th Jan 2014, 21:33

I agree, the DMM's days are numbered. Except maybe in SAM, where the Foreman could be the layer they will eliminate, leaving the DMM to technical management of the checks.

To an extent, I can understand why they don't want to pay a DMM 200+ to people manage. They can pay an Ops Manager considerably less than that to sign the leave forms and fwd the odd email and he can also be "accountable" (sackable) if he doesn't tow the line for the CAMO.

Ngineer

14th Jan 2014, 03:09

To an extent, I can understand why they don't want to pay a DMM 200+ to people manage. They can pay an Ops Manager considerably less than that to sign the leave forms and fwd the odd email and he can also be "accountable"

I think this is one of the main problems with this place, ie: People not knowing exactly what a role entails, and writing them off an encumbrance due to their ignorance. And secondly, making assumptions and spreading gossip that such roles are on the chopping block.

I can assure you that the role of DMM in dept's other than SAM goes way beyond leave and people management, and no I am not priviledged enough to be a DMM.

CoolB1Banana

14th Jan 2014, 04:03

I think you're the one showing ignorance if you think they are going to appoint all these Ops Managers and not take out a few other layers. The DMM position would be odds-on to go in my mind, after they help train up the new Ops Managers that is.

As for spreading gossip old mate, you do realise this is a rumour forum don't you?

VicVector

14th Jan 2014, 04:42

I think this is one of the main problems with this place, ie: People not knowing exactly what a role entails, and writing them off an encumbrance due to their ignorance. And secondly, making assumptions and spreading gossip that such roles are on the chopping block.

It's called an 'opinion' and CoolB1Banana, as we all are, is entitled to it.
Just because his view may obviously differ to yours doesn't make him ignorant.

Personally, from my experience, I tend to agree with CoolB1Banana.
But, that is just my opinion that I have from my experiences and observations.

I am sure others will also differ.

Ngineer

14th Jan 2014, 05:15

It's called an 'opinion' and CoolB1Banana, as we all are, is entitled to it.

Yep, and one based on ignorance. You are well and truly entitled to that.

Silverado

14th Jan 2014, 14:46

making assumptions and spreading gossip that such roles are on the chopping block.

At some stage you will have to ask the question: Why have both DMM's and OpsMgr's?

It may not happen in the near future, but the question will be asked by management. And the answer will be, we don't need both!

Guess who will be on the chopping block! I'm not saying it's right, but since when does being right mean anything in this place:ugh:

People not knowing exactly what a role entails, and writing them off an encumbrance

The people making the decisions DONT CARE

CoolB1Banana

14th Jan 2014, 22:22

With the EOI currently open across all areas (except Perth and North Qld), is there many volunteers for VR across the network?

There were a few guys in SAM that wanted "just 1 more year" last time around. It's been well documented on here that there's still plenty of guys that want the package in BNE LMO. What about other LMO ports and the MOC?

lamem

17th Jan 2014, 10:18

Now that Railway Dave is back let the games begin. He can Lean Sigma us out the door.

Flying Trades Person

18th Jan 2014, 18:47

What is a Railway Dave ?

Bootstrap1

19th Jan 2014, 08:02

He was at the helm of H245 Heavy Maint when it closed as well.

ALAEA Fed Sec

19th Jan 2014, 20:50

My earlier dealings with Dave led me to the belief that he was a pretty decent guy. Let's hope he hasn't been Nassenstiened.

CoolB1Banana

19th Jan 2014, 22:17

Hi Steve.

Any idea of the numbers for their latest cull?

Is it likely we will end up with a criteria similar that discussed last time, before the leave burn program was negotiated?

There's a lot of very nervous legacy LAMEs around the traps.

Regards,
CoolB1Banana.

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Jan 2014, 05:28

I could see this one coming.

http://i41.tinypic.com/10opifc.jpg

AEROMEDIC

21st Jan 2014, 06:05

Sad to see this happening Steve.

This was decided long ago, and "The GrandPlan" was never going to be changed for anyone.

Outrageous decision, and no certainty of safe practices now either.

buttmonkey1

21st Jan 2014, 06:30

Hows the cr mitigation eoi going?
There seems to be a flood of lames wanting to abandon ship.

Bumpfoh

21st Jan 2014, 07:05

As AEROMEDIC has stated

This was decided long ago, and "The GrandPlan" was never going to be changed for anyone.

So no surprises here.

The issue I and many of my colleagues have is that the author of the Qantas letter is a complete snake.
He certainly couldn't lie straight in bed and as I have previously stated he has no, read ZERO respect from the workforce whatsoever.

His ambivalence to the workforce is breath taking.

He openly bullsh1ts his way through supposed info sessions with the workforce only to go away and deliver hollow feedback emails purporting to be listeneing to the troops then to only deliver a double stack sh!t sandwhich down the track, e.g B747 to HAECO.

Wonder what gems he has to deliver tomorrow to the MEL LMO group.:yuk:

Jethro Gibbs

21st Jan 2014, 08:00

31/12/13 Greg Dundas of the Geelong Advertiser wrote .

Avalon Airport was the focus of attention throughout the year with Qantas's decision to send Its 300 maintenance workers based there to Brisbane.

Which gave the impression to the entire readership of Geelong that everyone at Avalon was being transferred to Brisbane after numerous calls and letters to the editor no correction has ever been made and claims are still being made by local business groups that over 800 people work at Avalon not including Jetstar and Qantas clearly this is also wrong .:ugh::mad::mad::mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Jan 2014, 08:44

The ALAEA whilst consulting to keep Qantas Avalon maintenance alive offered a new Agreement where Engineers would take home 25% less pay in 2014. It was rejected in favour of this Hong Kong facility who saw staff receive a 14.9% wage increase in the last 12 months alone.

One may suspect that HAECO may have been coming from a much lower base. Wrong. Two years ago in a bid for Qantas reconfig work, HAECO were only 2.5% cheaper than Qantas. Since then our dollar has dropped over 10% leaving the Australian Labour rate cheaper.

Labour shortages across Asia are driving wage rates up there rapidly. Not only is the quality of maintenance taken out of Qantas hands, they will fall prey to the waking dragon when maintenance costs are put out of their reach.

Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford, Lyell Strambi and Chris Nassenstein, you have no f****n idea what you are doing at Qantas. Get the hell out of our company and go back to the s***holes you came from.

Haeco's worker shortage cuts profit | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1296321/haeco-interim-net-profit-falls-21pc-hk359m)

Arnold E

21st Jan 2014, 10:38

leaving the Australian Labour rate cheaper.

Then why is this happening, surely someone knows ???

empire4

21st Jan 2014, 10:48

Its not just the labour rate. The cost of all the red tape, green tape and any other tape in Australia make it un-affordable. Have a look at the NON-PRODUCTIVE support staff at places like AVV. HAECO, MAS, SIA have no where near as many people sucking on the production. Nor do they pay them what QF does. Have a look at safety……… Just for arguments sake. Heavy Maintenance is dead in Aus.

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Jan 2014, 11:28

The labour rates are now lower in Australia for maintenance than Hong Kong. HAECO and other Asian MROs can match or beat others when they bid for work by cutting corners. I know this is a big claim but we have Qantas internal safety audits that have countless examples. Things like flt control checks being carried out on days when the aircraft is completely unpowered.

The practice is commonly known as pencil whipping. It's certifying to say that the checks have been done from an office. Qantas LAMEs have reported cases where wiring looms behind panels required inspections for wiring security, chaffing etc..... After some suspicion they double checked work that had been certified in Asia to find that panel screws had not been undone (you know this because they initially give a little crack to break them from their long stuck bonds). Then the wires that were supposed to be inspected are covered in years of dust.

Qantas don't care about this. All the reports I have seen are quickly discarded or are written off. In one case over 100 reports at the end of a check in Malaysia were found in a Supervisors bin. It suits Qantas and other airlines to ignore the defects because defects cost money to fix. Life in the KPI lane is much better suited to maintenance teams that turn a blind eye. CASA are too numb to do anything about it.

What results from this is things we have noted from subsequent checks. C checks are normally run about every 3 years. When the Avalon boys would do the subsequent check after a plane had the previous one done overseas, the boys are finding and fixing 6 years worth of corrosion instead of 3. What is occurring here is criminal.

DrPepz

21st Jan 2014, 11:56

http://www.haeco.com/investor_relations/Annual_Report_English_2012.pdf

Haeco's staff costs were HK$2.2 bil for 14,000 employees - works out to US$23,000 per year. Of the 14,000 employees about 6,000 are in Hong Kong. Their staff expenses were up 7% in 2013, and overall expenses up 14%

http://www.siaec.com.sg/investor_relations/annual_report/AnnualReport_2012.pdf

SIAEC's staff costs in 2013 were S$79,000, or US$63,000 per annum

http://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/Investor-Relations/Annual-Report/annualreport1213.pdf

SIA - the airline (not the group) had staff costs of S$1.6 bil for 14,000 employees or S$114,000 per employee/US$91,000

Qantas has horrific segmentation of financial statements. We only know the Group has 33,000 staff, and the wages bill for 2013 was A$3.8 bil - works out to around US$100,000 per employee. If the AUD falls a few more percent, SIA will end up having higher staff costs than QF.

However - wages costs are not the entire story. Things like tax incentives, government handouts, training, availability of supply chain etc helps. The Singapore government gives MROs subsidised land, tax breaks, works with polytechnics to ensure a steady supply of trained technicians, works with universities to ensure that they produce a minimum number of aerospace engineers per year. Concerted government action in Singapore and Hong Kong ensures that the entire supply chain and labour force required for MROs are in place.

If any SIA or CX plane has trouble in their home base, all the parts and repair facilities are just round the corner. SIA or CX own stakes in most of those facilities and can ensure that they're always at the front of the queue when there's any maintenance problem. (Are HAECO and SIAEC really inferior to other MROs in the world though? I'm not privy to inside information, so I can't pass that judgement. Why are SIA and CX and MH planes not breaking down and getting into huge maintenance defect problems?)

And anyway it appears Qantas has a huge amount of staff compared to revenue. SIA Group had 22,000 staff generating S$15 bil (A$13.4 bil). That's A$609,000 per employee. Qantas group had 33,000 staff generating A$15.9 bil - A$480,000 per employee - so each Qantas employee generates 30% less revenue for Qantas than SIA.

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Jan 2014, 12:18

The number of staff an airline has does not reflect the amount of labour they use. I can take Sin Air for example. Engineers are all within a different company called SIAEC with HM employed by ST AERO. I doubt that they are reported in Singapore staff numbers.

Cathay is the same. Bugger all Engineers with Hkg Line and Heavy staff all employed by HAECO. They have a completely separate listing on the HK stock exchange and have their own annual reports even though they are also owned by the Swire group.

If you want to use the staff numbers from the airline annual reports, you may find that a number of airlines can run with a hand full of maintenance staff. It doesn't mean they don't incur the maintenance expense however.

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Jan 2014, 12:25

For what it is worth. In 2009 HAECO were charging Qantas $390HK per hour for labour. I suspect now this has gone up substantially.

Australopithecus

21st Jan 2014, 12:31

Dr Pepz, you have highlighted a concern that has been voiced since the mid-90's: too many employees per aeroplane, per RPK, per RTK. What isn't apparent is the management overhead. QF labour under an almost 2:1 employee:supervisory overhead (including supervisors, managers, executives etc). Most of us are adults with acceptable reading comprehension.

Another factor not evident in the bare numbers is the revenue per RPK. Yield management is a fruitless exercise as long as Qantas weakens the market with a huge low-fare competitor. The idealogical Jetstar experiment is cannibalising yields to the detriment of the group as a whole. As predicted and observed everywhere else a legacy carrier hosted a LCC.

QF will have to trim staff per aeroplane down to industry standards. It is long overdue. Actual front line staff numbers have been stagnant or falling...administrative and management numbers on the other hand have been growing. The fleet is diminishing, staff numbers relatively stable.

Both of those mistakes are of the executive and board.

Biggles78

21st Jan 2014, 12:44

How would the breakeven costs figure if you take into account the financial benefit to Australia if the maintenance takes place at Avalon and the money stay INSIDE this country instead of being "exported" for inferior work done overseas? Engineers will pay tax on their wages, buy goods at the local stores (money stay here) and help keep local businesses open which pay tax on their earnings along with the staff they employ.

To compare it to the car industry, if Holden had received the Govt subsidy, then how much tax revenue would have been returned to the Govt coffers from the people at Holden and the others downstream, many of who shall lose their jobs. What happens when the AUD$ drops a few more cents against the greenback and Aussie manufacturing then becomes viable.

Apologies for the automobile comparison on an aviation site but it seems to me that we are going to lose potentially valuable manufacturing and maintenance skills and once they are gone will they ever come back?

Why is Joyce so desperate to destroy QANTAS? Is he being paid by any foreign airlines to do this? This seems to be the only logical reason why he is killing the Rat.

Bagus

21st Jan 2014, 12:50

Mangement lied to Avalon workforce.How could any engineering employees ever trust these b*******

DrPepz

21st Jan 2014, 12:51

Yes it is true that SIA's engineers are mostly in SIAEC, but SIAEC is 80% owned by SIA, so under SIA Group accounts, they have 22,000 staff including those in SIAEC, who for all intents and purposes are SIA staff. (Like QF Engineers are probably under a department or entity called Qantas Engineering) So in the Group accounts, they're all consolidated. ST Aero is a competitor to SIAEC, SIA does not use them or their suppliers. From what little I know, the way SIAEC undercut ST Aero and other MROs was they used marginal costing, as all overheads were allocated to SIA. Non-SIA work was taken on as overflow if there were spare resources available, in between SIA work, to take them on. It also annoys ST Aero, because without the legacy airline baggage, ST Aero is a more efficient outfit than SIAEC.

CoolB1Banana

21st Jan 2014, 19:41

Whatever HAECO or SIAEC pay their engineers is irrelevant in this discussion.

What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.

What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.

peuce

21st Jan 2014, 20:16

Makes it difficult to justify an argument to the Government for subsidy/assistance....when the money potentially given by the Australian Public will be spent in Hong Kong!

CoolB1Banana

21st Jan 2014, 20:39

There seems to be a flood of lames wanting to abandon ship.In what sections are you seeing this buttmonkey1?

I know of a few guys that have got their hand up for a package but I wouldn't call it a flood.

I'm hearing we'll know more in the next month or so but then again that's been the rumor for six months or so:ugh:

Capt Claret

21st Jan 2014, 21:29

Why would Australians support Qantas when Qantas doesn't support Australians?

Sunfish

21st Jan 2014, 21:37

Coolbanana:

Whatever HAECO or SIAEC pay their engineers is irrelevant in this discussion.

What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.

What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.

Ho! Ho! Ho! Banana you have read my mind, but wait! There are more games that are yet to be played.

Whoever is in charge of outsourcing is no doubt totally schmoozed, wined, dined, lubricated fondled and provided with whatever they need by HAECO, legal or not, but there are now Three more steps to go to encompass the full capture of Qantas by its outsource company.

1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..

2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!

Of course our objective in doing this is to lobotomise/paralyse Qantas while we suck the life out of it. To do this we remove anyone in Qantas with the technical skills to analyse our performance, either technically or financially, so that no one can determine if we are providing value for money. We do this by:

(a) DIscovering who the technical and financial leaders are who could analyse our work and its costs. We hire the best and brightest of them ourselves (we make them relationship managers don't we? After all they know Qantas). With the willing help of the sponsoring Qantas manager whose neck is on the line, we suggest that Qantas fire the technical staff who might criticise our work,don't like us, or might blow the whistle.

(b) Offering to provide a full suite of "performance reports" every month for the Board and Senior management - of course our analysis and presentation is always designed to show us in the best possible light. Qantas of course fires the in house bean counters who once did this.

3. We are now in the happy end state to which all good outsource providers aspire:

We have total control of the Qantas technical agenda because there is no one left in the company with the technical background to stand up to us. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request. We can use this ability to maximise profits.

Our client does not have the faintest idea if they are receiving value for money. We have removed anyone who has the ability to perform forensic financial analysis of maintenance and overhaul costs. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request.

Should Qantas become a little anxious about this situation, we grab the management by the balls and squeeze, hard. We make it as difficult as possible to switch to a new outsourcing supplier. We ensure that any attempt to remove us is going to be career suicide for our Qantas management sponsor, we can do this by selective leaking to the media about the real costs of our services. If we are a teeny bit lucky, we also have a **** file on the Qantas management sponsor, maybe they liked underage chinese girls or been a bit free with the expense account? We know all about that and file it. We remind Qantas that as they have no technical expertise in aircraft maintenance any more, they will have to bear the costs of re-establishing technical expertise before they are even capable of assessing another supplier.

A company I worked for did exactly this to a very large Melbourne based undertaking. Of course once they worked out what we had done to them, they had the balls to hire a whole new technical team and gradually pry themselves free of our clutches. Pity that Qantas doesn't have the balls.

500N

21st Jan 2014, 22:12

Sunfish

It sounds like you have done a course that was called the Strategic Selling course. A lot of corporates did it in the 80's and 90's.

Sponsor, Coach, tie in the project, success, all were used.

You are spot on with your assessment.

"1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..

2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!"

73to91

21st Jan 2014, 22:27

Whoever is in charge of outsourcing is no doubt totally schmoozed, wined, dined, lubricated fondled and provided with whatever they need by

No knowledge of or proof naturally but gee, there would be plenty of people who have sat in on meetings and negotiations who would have walked out of the same and said 'this won't happen, it will end up costing us a fortune' only to be told at the next meeting 'we have decided to go with them'.

Happens everywhere.

Was told that there are plenty of management questioning the relationship with Accor based on knowledge and experience lost (funny though that same issue doesn't extend to engineering) and the big one the accountants have worked out that it is costing QF more. Accor have told plenty that they want to get in and run QF marketing and events, it won't happen though.

Bagus

22nd Jan 2014, 01:36

Qf engineering was 30% more expensive than other MRO (Nov 2012 quote) dollar was $110 ,now $ going down quote need to be revised.:D:D

ALAEA Fed Sec

22nd Jan 2014, 01:52

Two or so years ago Qantas Avalon were only 2.5% more expensive than HAECO over the $200M 747 reconfig project. Figures supplied by Qantas.

Now the dollar is down and HAECO wages up 14.9% last year alone.

Australopithecus

22nd Jan 2014, 02:00

The acting prime minister says the government has also raised changing laws to allow foreign ownership to make up more than 49 per cent of the national carrier, but it would not pass through the Senate.

Mr Truss says it was a pity Qantas this week announced a tender process to maintain the company's dwindling fleet of 15 aircraft long-term.
However, he said an Australian maintenance facility was not viable, given Qantas' plans to reduce it's 747 fleet to just eight.

"You can't operate a major maintenance facility for only eight aircraft," Mr Truss told reporters in Brisbane.
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."

Mr Truss said the government was willing to look at a change in laws restricting Qantas foreign ownership, but he did not think they would be successful.
"My assessment is it would not be possible at the current time to get changes in the law through the senate," he said.

"We continue to work with Qantas to find the best way for the company to develop and be prosperous ... (but) ultimately they'll be responsible for their own destiny."
Mr Truss said he welcomed Qantas' moves to keep itself viable.

Qantas' announcement came two months after the airline announced the Avalon facility in Victoria would close, resulting in 300 job losses.
But Qantas said it would continue to do heavy maintenance on the majority of its aircraft at its facility in Brisbane, which recently received a $30 million upgrade.

empire4

22nd Jan 2014, 04:40

FEDSEC, you are 100% correct in what you have stated. I have seen it first hand. Unfortunately in the world of "signed IAW" said MM you are very hard pressed to prove a thing. That is until a smoking hole in the ground and 400 peoples families destroyed…..

QF22

22nd Jan 2014, 05:05

Gday SP
Surely if fraudulently certified maintenance can be proven either CASA or Canberra ( maybe Senator Nick) would have to step in and intervene?
The AMM is pretty specific re cleaning and inspection of wiring these days.
If supervising Qantas LAMEs can gather evidence, the whistle should be blown!
Keep up the fight mate !

Romulus

22nd Jan 2014, 05:37

Ngineer

22nd Jan 2014, 07:16

"You can't operate a major maintenance facility for only eight aircraft," Mr Truss told reporters in Brisbane.
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."

Correct, you can't keep services operating with no aircraft, but this is not the issue as the airline does have numerous aircraft. Even before the 380 arrived on the scene it was plain as day that the company was winding down heavy maint ops. We were never going to carry out heavy maint on the 380, or any other new types that may or may not arrive. So the issue of not carrying out heavy maint due no aircraft is not valid.

I personally have serious concerns for the fate of BNE heavy in the coming years. I see guys at the airport who look like 457 Visa holders carrying out work I used to do whilst my mates are facing the unemployment line. It makes me sick.

I have worked at HKG heavy a few years back and seen 1 LAME supervising and certifying 2 seperate arcraft in the hangar. Stuff knows who the workers were he was certifying (they were not Licenced, in fact I am unsure what qualifications they held).

I have personally seen some things that make me wonder if some of the bigwigs and decision makers in the various aviation fields in this country are in each others pockets.

"Australia is open for Business"...... my @rse it is.

ALAEA Fed Sec

22nd Jan 2014, 07:58

Romulus the cost of ongoing whitespace is expensive. In the Avalon case, we revamped their maintenance program taking aircraft they could not fit in Brisbane and filled all that whitespace. On top of that we offered 3 months leave without pay in 2014 for each employee just in case their was an issue.

I better go have a chat with Truss. He has obviously been given an i-pad.

Bumpfoh

22nd Jan 2014, 10:54

Good luck with that chat SP, the guy is clearly an out of touch imbecile who has no place in politics let alone his portfolio!

victor two

22nd Jan 2014, 10:59

"better go have a word..."
What - is he your rear neighbor, just have a chat over the back fence. Give the name dropping a rest eh!

Questions :1- is it not obvious by now that the world has changed and the old days are gone and many many traditional jobs will disappear either overseas or ...just disappear and there is no union, petition, protest, peace march or political ally that will change that fact?

2- can anyone still alive remember the last time a QF employee from any section of the business ever posted something positive about their life?

Honestly....enough

Jethro Gibbs

22nd Jan 2014, 11:08

QANTAS' decision to send Avalon maintenance jobs offshore adds insult to injury, the AWU has said.
Australian Workers' Union Victoria Secretary Ben Davis said Qantas had gone back on their assurance that the 300 jobs would go to Brisbane.

What ! assurance what rubbish :mad: complete bull##%t :ugh:

Australopithecus

22nd Jan 2014, 11:12

Hey Victor Two...who the **** asked you?

CamelSquadron

22nd Jan 2014, 11:17

Should Qantas become a little anxious about this situation, we grab the management by the balls and squeeze, hard. We make it as difficult as possible to switch to a new outsourcing supplier. We ensure that any attempt to remove us is going to be career suicide for our Qantas management sponsor, we can do this by selective leaking to the media about the real costs of our services. If we are a teeny bit lucky, we also have a **** file on the Qantas management sponsor, maybe they liked underage chinese girls or been a bit free with the expense account? We know all about that and file it. We remind Qantas that as they have no technical expertise in aircraft maintenance any more, they will have to bear the costs of re-establishing technical expertise before they are even capable of assessing another supplier.

This sounds familiar........

Of course once they worked out what we had done to them, they had the balls to hire a whole new technical team and gradually pry themselves free of our clutches. Pity that Qantas doesn't have the balls.

Oh of course its familiar - lucky Qantas had the balls.......

Australopithecus

22nd Jan 2014, 11:24

CamelSquadron...its past your bedtime.

ALAEA Fed Sec

22nd Jan 2014, 11:51

You are a goose Victor two. Anyone can call a Ministers office and try and book a meeting to chat to them.

Bagus

22nd Jan 2014, 14:47

Truss has no idea,not only 747 going off shore ,380,737 and 767 getting offshore too,look at the latest maint plan.jetstar 320 is offshore too.50% of maint are offshore including engines and components.

CoolB1Banana

22nd Jan 2014, 20:06

What about Line Maintenance?

When and where are they going to wield the axe next?

Nassensteins Monster

22nd Jan 2014, 21:08

ALAEA FedSec, the above post is a pertinent question. Frankly I'm sick of nervous legacy LAMEs pumping me for info. What are you hearing that you can reveal without jeopardizing your sources?

buttmonkey1

22nd Jan 2014, 21:13

Where to next?
a half decent management would communicate it to all, perhaps work together, novel idea, lol.
I think get the non union ops managers in place, get rid of the crew pandering, o/t padding dmm,
all clear for the full mod and use the cat a boys and girls.
Lots of eoi's in from the dmm down, they know their day is done. don't want
to be a part of it. plenty like you said, a year older and a year more tired.
That **** for brains in the fnq should be going too.

Sunfish

22nd Jan 2014, 21:52

There is no point in trying to talk to CASA, they won't intervene in anything Qantas does.

The Government doesn't care.

The ATSB under its present management will simply blame the pilot should an accident occur and cover up any evidence to the contrary with the willing support of the Govenrment and CASA ask Dominic James about what they did to him.

What happens next is a deterioration in airline safety to African standards ( probably being rude to Africans) I think about Four or five smoking holes in the ground might encourage a few generally moronic Australians to ask questions.

Alternatively a crash into one of the eastern seaboard CBD's might do it.

I don't believe there are many politicians in government who have any respect at all for the rule of law anymore, they are too interested in feathering their own nests.

Jethro Gibbs

22nd Jan 2014, 23:33

And yet again 246 Forstaff employees are refered to as contractors in newspapers :ugh::mad:

BrissySparkyCoit

23rd Jan 2014, 01:23

Hey jethro. Have a look at the bottom of your ASIC.

Jethro Gibbs

23rd Jan 2014, 07:11

BrissySparrkyCoit Fact is these people are fulltime employees of Forstaff they are not contractors weather you like it or not and I don't see how it even effects you .

empire4

23rd Jan 2014, 09:40

Jethro, FORSTAFF provide CONTRACT labour to QANTAS. You work for a LABOUR HIRE COMPANY, not an airline. Get over it.

Romulus

23rd Jan 2014, 10:14

To help differentiate employee vs contractor:

Employees usually

do ongoing work that is controlled by their employer
work hours they’re told to work by their employer
are not responsible for financial risk
are entitled to superannuation from their employer
are entitled to minimum wages
have income tax taken out of their pay
are paid regularly (weekly / fortnightly / monthly)
are generally entitled to paid leave if they are permanent employees.

Independent contractors usually

decide how to do their work and what skills they need to do it
decide whether to employ someone else to do the work
carry the risk of making a profit or loss
pay their own superannuation and tax, including GST
have their own insurance
are contracted to work for a set time or do a set task
decide what hours to work
invoice for their work or get paid at the end of the contract or project
don’t get paid leave.

Of course, this is a test of employee or contractor for Forstaff, not QANTAS, there is clearly not an employment relationship there, there is a commercial relationship between Forstaff and QANTAS.

Jethro Gibbs

23rd Jan 2014, 10:22

Thanks to Romulus for pointing out to these half wits exactly what I was saying these people are Employees of Forstaff they are not contractors .

Silverado

23rd Jan 2014, 13:12

Avalon workers still believe they have a future at Avalon Its Time to wake up people the game is over .

Jethro, you made this comment on the 18th Sep 2013. You were right, the game is over. Contractor or employee it doesn't matter! You loose, everyone looses!

It's time to stop hijacking this thread. Perhaps provide some advice or questions about the current or future changes happening in Qantas Engineering that are affecting us all!

Sunfish

23rd Jan 2014, 15:44

Qantas is about to learn a very hard lesson. Hopefully it will only be shareholders and managers who feel the pain.

At some point it becomes obvious to employees that their employer can't be trusted. When that happens employees put their own interests first and minimise their contribution to the business. This is what I saw on my last international flight with Qantas a long time ago - tired, dispirited staff just going through the motions of pretending to look after passengers.

To put that another way, one managemnt theory is that management exists to insulate staff from uncertainty and risk by providing them with a stable (risk free) environment in which they can work for the good of the company. Qantas obviously does not subscrbe to this belief as it has been doing its level best for as long as I have been on Pprune to create and foster fear uncertainty and doubt among at least its engineering workforce.

Qantas calculates that the mystique of airlines and international travel will provide it a steady stream of naive ingenues who can be recruited into its workforce and discarded when it suits it and I think they are right, I have One or Two acquaintances who are blissfully happy there at the moment.

However there needs to be a core workforce of old and not bold experienced workers who know the tricks and traps of the trade, and it is the loss of these people that worries me....

Specifically I am worried about line maintenance and operations and to a lesser extent engineering planning, repair and overhaul and heavy maintenance. One simple mistake made by a stressed employee in these areas can lead to tragedy.

To put that another way, consider what might have happened if the failure to perform the AD on the Ansett B767 tail had not been picked up.

Flying Trades Person

23rd Jan 2014, 19:15

FEDSEC that may have been a toy offer by you but it would not have passed the guy's on the floor. No dole tied to months of no pay, some LAME'S with good pay and resources may have been able to sustain that offer but NOT the average guy. It is silly to keep saying it as an offer by you is not a bloody gone conclusion that would have passed the WORKERS vote and I know this for a fact. (guess I may work there hey)

ALAEA Fed Sec

23rd Jan 2014, 20:05

FTP it was not a toy offer to the company to incorporate 3 months leave without pay in 2014. When I fronted the workforce for the first time to announce this across both crews outside the facility I reckon the meetings and briefs to members covered a couple of hundred workers. Initial reactions were only met by one person disappointed in what we had put on the table. If it was such a bad option, our Reps would have been accosted in the workplace by angry members and they only reported praise for what we were trying to do.

I touched on this in some notices but can show why this would have worked. 3 months of no pay would be very difficult for most. We had put to the company that this should be averaged over 2 years, so 12.5% less pay each week. In the first year there was a 3% wage rise 1 Jan so that year in real terms 9.5% less, 2nd year (another 3%) 6.5% less. ALAEA members to be offered interest free loans in case of hardship.

The company to exhaust annual leave first. Any unused LWOP to go into an account for each employee like your overtime bank. We had rehashed the maintenance plan to bring down the excess 737 work from Brisbane leaving bugger all whitespace. In all likelihood I doubt they would even need the LWOP.

If this was put to a ballot the blokes would have had a choice of what I put above, or closure. In the closure case you option would be zero weeks pay in 24 months. I'm pretty sure the ballot would have passed.

Flying Trades Person

23rd Jan 2014, 20:53

I can only say that you may think this way, but on the coal face I can tell you very few people would have voted that way as a numbers game was ran and it WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. As you know they say little at meetings but when the penny drops and it sinks in NO WAY it would have happened. As is happening now heaps more working o/time just to make ends meet.

Do not get me wrong as you tried but face facts money is everything when it goes that is a dynamite situation for many, if a form of payment was given (do not know how, but other industries like car and Alcoa seems to be more important for future voting) it could have been survivable for many and it would have been voted up.

But the situation is dead and all marching 28th March 2014 (now this is a fact do you agree)

Jethro Gibbs

23rd Jan 2014, 21:36

Silverado here is my point the local geelong advertiser keeps publishing articles that the 246 forstaff employees are contractors when clearly they are NOT .
If you read any articles this paper writes about Avalon you would know they are full of errors and bulls#×£.

Redpanda

23rd Jan 2014, 22:20

That's easy to fix Jethro, stop reading the stupid paper.......

ALAEA Fed Sec

23rd Jan 2014, 22:41

Yes FTP I agree with your last point.

We are preparing the Fed Court case against the decision for breaching the job security clause in the Qantas LAME Agreement. Unfortunately a decision even if we win would be 12 months away and I suppose all that will happen would be that they would get fined.

They did however get fined last year over 40 gorillas for breaching the Agreement with very strong words from the judge warning them not to do it again. Don't hang your hat on it though.

AEROMEDIC

23rd Jan 2014, 23:12

Once again, Steve, even if you win this breach of agreement case, the penalty will not fit the offence. The fine wil again be small, and followed by stern words of "don't do it again".
The alternative of not doing anything is just not palatable, so assuming you get costs awarded in your favor, then it's worth the effort to "keep the bastards honest".
So I say good luck in this case and any others that you pursue on behalf of your members.

Bagus

24th Jan 2014, 01:11

Notice period given to Qantas staff at Avalon,last day in April and some in June.Forstaff employees getting warning by HR for taking sickie.
Qf management cruelty to Forstaff---
u must work your notice period
u loose 2 weeks if u take sickie
U must deliver aircraft on time
No o/t on that week if you take sickie on Monday or Friday

IAW

24th Jan 2014, 01:17

And fair enough too. I loathe the Aussie culture of the "sickie". Sick leave is for when you are......SICK!

Nassensteins Monster

24th Jan 2014, 01:38

Sick leave is also for when the manpower in your area has been cut to the bone and leave at short notice (anything less than a couple of months) is impossible to get.

AEROMEDIC

24th Jan 2014, 02:07

IAW,

Under normal circumstances, you would be right.
Under the circumstances existing today, the stress can be intolerable for some and as I have posted before, I would not want those affected to be working and/or certifying for work on the aircraft on which I may be about to fly.
These people need to be completely focused on these matters and not drifting away on thoughts about what is going to become of them and their families and critical mistakes will be made. Not just in the quality of the work, but in the carrying out of procedures that affect the safety of those in the vicinity.
Accidents happen this way.

THAT'S what WILL happen at times like this .....so go easy on them.

Bagus

24th Jan 2014, 04:24

Loosing ur jobs is what make employees sick.in this circumstances employees should not be penalized.

airtags

25th Jan 2014, 03:07

Jethro - its easy...... the smart journalists guide for interpreting QF B.S. - applicable to all matters dealing with Pilots, CC, LAMES, rampies and ground staff

they are contractors when:
(a) the company is announcing cuts and closures (it doesnt matter they are not our staff)
(b) there is a stuff up that can make AJ et. al look bad (it someone else's fault)
(c) the company media release says outsourcing is good (alongside greed which is always good)
(d) the basic principles of FRMS and human factors are inconvenient

they are not contractors when:
(a) managemnt KPI's are due and the exec bonuses look wobbly ("part of the family mantra - we all need to cut costs together)
(b) there is a major incident wherein LAMEs, drivers and CC all are rolled out as the salt of the company e.g. A380 RR myopia ("we have the best professionals in the business but overlook the fact that we take them for granted and tip buckets of sh*t on them at every opportunity)

ALAEA Fed Sec

25th Jan 2014, 05:27

If you can't read this then just google the title and you should get access.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/offshoring-costs-to-soar/story-e6frg95x-1226808878029)

Anulus Filler

25th Jan 2014, 09:42

TL's 747 'whitespace' is about to be 'brownspace' by the time the asian contractors finish with them. Just add the vaso....'kingidiots!:ugh:

Ngineer

25th Jan 2014, 09:43

Makes sense that MRO's will start ramping up charges after other operators start shutting down their facilities.

Only problems are 1/ In due time the operator will have little control over the costs of heavy maintenance. 2/ How will an airline start up in-house maintenance again with the associated start-up costs so high and a lack of suitably experienced engineers. 3/ Who will be left to sack when unexpected costs associated with heavy maintenance start to blow out the cost base of the business.

I guess current management will be long gone to deal with such issues.

What a great shame that the next generations of Australians will no longer have the same opportunities we have had in this industry. To me this is the greatest tragedy.

Flying Trades Person

4th Feb 2014, 22:07

Oh the topic nearly fell of the front page.

CoolB1Banana

5th Feb 2014, 01:12

SAM taking over the 737 overnighters is a given.

With one batch of Ops Managers for International and Domestic, one would assume they are going on to the same shift.

With a proper integration of A380 into SAM, that will leave the three business units of Terminals, SAM and LMCE (Cabbos and IFE).

Getting rid of the DMM and Supervisor positions and reducing the number of crews to get rid of a few leading hands will cost quite a few LAME scalps, A licences one MOD will claim even more.

It's hard to see how they can get rid of many more without significantly reducing the workload?

Clipped

5th Feb 2014, 01:26

Not a fan of Paul Howes, but just listened to him on the ABC's NPC and he delivered a fantastic speech, with quite a bit of eloquence, on the IR debate.

I might have even changed my view on him but that tie up with Livvy is just a bit too cosy.

I haven't got the link, but do try and listen to it on the ABC website.

The Bungeyed Bandit

5th Feb 2014, 03:04

And I believe Livvy was there in the audience.
Sorry but I just don't trust him.
Pity the poor blokes he represents.
The ALAEA executive was corrupt to the core about ten years ago. I'm just glad we've now got Steve and the rest working for us now. He's a but of a loose cannon sometimes but I do trust his integrity.

ALAEA Fed Sec

5th Feb 2014, 06:03

Loose cannon alright.

lamem

5th Feb 2014, 07:57

Texas Tony and Railway Dave were in ADL today sprouting goodness and light. Lets work together and share the work so we can all move forward and build a better company etc etc.
Oh yeah we will be shortly completely shafting SAMS, the 2 SYD terminals and probably MEL followed by BNE but its all for your own good.

Flying Trades Person

5th Feb 2014, 21:00

The soft spoken smooth talking T**d ( everything is big in TEXAS including his crap)

Bagus

6th Feb 2014, 22:32

ALAEA Fed Sec

6th Feb 2014, 22:59

What are you on about. Having to work your notice period. Do you know what a notice period is?

Company said they will give the blokes extra if they don't take "x" number of sickies. Looks like they've decided to take sickies. What do you expect a union to do about it?

Bagus

6th Feb 2014, 23:09

Inl lieu notice is wht is all about.previous redundant you get paid your notice period.wht got bonus to do with sick leave.

ALAEA Fed Sec

6th Feb 2014, 23:43

Usually a company needs staff to work a notice period. Pretty sure they worked Mel and Syd HM when they closed. Are you expecting Forstaff to pay you when you are not working?

What's bonus got to do with Sick leave? I would usually say nothing but I think the past bonuses that have been paid to Forstaff employees have an element of burnt leave used within the calculations.

If the whole thing is making you feel sick. Go see a doctor.

Jethro Gibbs

6th Feb 2014, 23:53

Don't despair the local paper tells us today a Mad Max Museum and the Land 400 Army vehicle construction is now on the cards for Avalon Thousands of jobs they say . :mad::ugh:just more bs .

Romulus

7th Feb 2014, 01:31

Forstaff employees getting shafted,no bonus payment if sick leave is high,if aircraft don't meet schedule.They are being made redundant and have to work their notice period.Where is the union.Corporate blackmail.You have to feel sorry for these guys.

No sense of entitlement there! Nothing to see, move along people...

You're part of the problem Bagus, assuming that attitude extends to your workplace.

As SP points out, a notice period is exactly that, the period of notice you are required to give (in either direction) before ceasing work. It MAY be paid out at the discretion of the company but that is not a certainty.

CoolB1Banana

7th Feb 2014, 02:02

It's Friday afternoon, management's favourite time of the week to make big announcements.

Is the "Process Review" ready to come out of the 189 vault?

Are they going to start dishing out the redundancies yet or is it just going to be another shuffle of managers?

Silverado

7th Feb 2014, 04:15

Isn't the 189 vault now empty? Numbers already crunched.

CoolB1Banana

7th Feb 2014, 04:45

Line up for your pineapples fellas. Rough end first of course...

Nassensteins Monster

7th Feb 2014, 05:57

CoolB1Banana: Line up for your pineapples fellas. Rough end first of course...

Easy Tiges.

Half yearly results are still 3 weeks away. That'll be when they announce "the measures we must take to return our business to profitability", or shortly thereafter "in response to our poor half yearly results and after a comprehensive strategic review" will be the justification for the cull.

And that will be for starters.

Over the last few years we've all had time to consider Life After Qantas. The time we knew would approach is almost upon us.

Bring it.

CoolB1Banana

7th Feb 2014, 06:08

It may not be today but there will be big announcements in engineering before the 27th.

Nassensteins Monster

7th Feb 2014, 07:26

If you've got something let's hear it. I'm all ears.

ConcernedLAME

11th Feb 2014, 08:05

I think some of you guys from AVV better look up the definition of a "contractor
As for the sickie thing , dont get me started - totaly unprofessional as far i am concerned .

Yes your fantastic voyage has come to an end .....move on ....We all have and you know what you might have to work for aliving in the big bad world ....!!!

Jethro Gibbs

11th Feb 2014, 09:41

They are full time employees of Forstaff not contractors ffs! at least get your facts right .:ugh:

To help differentiate employee vs contractor:

Employees usually

do ongoing work that is controlled by their employer
work hours they’re told to work by their employer
are not responsible for financial risk
are entitled to superannuation from their employer
are entitled to minimum wages
have income tax taken out of their pay
are paid regularly (weekly / fortnightly / monthly)
are generally entitled to paid leave if they are permanent employees.

Independent contractors usually

decide how to do their work and what skills they need to do it
decide whether to employ someone else to do the work
carry the risk of making a profit or loss
pay their own superannuation and tax, including GST
have their own insurance
are contracted to work for a set time or do a set task
decide what hours to work
invoice for their work or get paid at the end of the contract or project
don’t get paid leave.

Of course, this is a test of employee or contractor for Forstaff, not QANTAS, there is clearly not an employment relationship there, there is a commercial relationship between Forstaff and QANTAS.

AEROMEDIC

11th Feb 2014, 10:26

Sensible quote Jethro.

Jethro Gibbs

11th Feb 2014, 10:30

From Romulus but its on the ATO web site as well.

AEROMEDIC

11th Feb 2014, 10:51

Yup, knew that. That's why I said quote.

Silverado

11th Feb 2014, 12:35

Independent contractors usually

Wrong type of contractor Jethro.

Jethro Gibbs

12th Feb 2014, 07:41

Forstaff employees are not contractors like it or not its a fact anyway they will be gone soon and your next.

Silverado

12th Feb 2014, 08:50

Thanks for harping on about it Jethro and providing valuable contribution to this thread.

AEROMEDIC

12th Feb 2014, 08:52

Silverado,

You're off course here.

Forstaff Aviation is a contract company and it's employees are just that.
It's the company that obtains contracts and the employees work them as required. They are permanent employees of the contract company.
Contractor workers on the other hand, work to fulfil a contract to which they have agreed. They are not permanent employees and will be terminated under the conditions of the contract which is usually a time period, viz 3, 6, 12 months.
If you want to debate the point, it's also pointless because Jethro and Qantas employees are in the same boat confronting the same issue of "will I be without a job when all this stops?"
Taking cheap shots at people who are facing unemployment is unconscionable and you should look at both sides of this story.

Concerned LAME,

Your posts on this issue are a contradiction to your name. These are very worried people whose future is ending. Those employees at Avalon don't need being told that at all.

Jethro Gibbs

12th Feb 2014, 09:27

You just don't get it.:ugh:

Silverado

12th Feb 2014, 09:28

And round and round in circles we go.

Aeromedic, everyone is fully aware of the type of employment that Forstaff workers are engaged in with Forstaff.

What I was alerting Jethro to, is his use of the description "Independent Contractor", which no one has claimed Forstaff employees to be.

You just don't get it.:ugh:

I get it Jethro, AVV closure is a fait accompli

Lets take the thread back to its title "When is the next cull at QF Engineering"

Perhaps someone else can shed some light on what was said in S.A.M. yesterday by Tony Lowery.

ALAEA Fed Sec

12th Feb 2014, 09:58

Tony Lowrey and Nassenstein want all Qantas maintenance carried out overseas. If they had it their way, we wouldn't even be topping up engine oils.

Silverado

12th Feb 2014, 10:07

Your as bad as the rest of them Steve :cool:

Was that an attempt to divert someone from posting what was actually said, by inciting doom and gloom.

It's already pretty gloomy:(

emergency000

12th Feb 2014, 13:20

I don't often agree with Steve, but I 100% do in this case.

During a toolbox talk with Chris N when I was with QF, he straight out said that if Qantas had their time over, they'd never have based heavy maintenance in Australia, it'd be 100% offshore.

I don't know if they'll ever achieve their heinous goals, but they certainly seem to be trying!

Sunfish

12th Feb 2014, 21:28

The benefits of moving Qantas maintenance and overhaul overseas, from a management perspective include:

1) Qantas engineering management is not required to demonstrate any in depth knowledge of maintenance practices, procedures or strategies, Any potential incompetence or negligence on their part can be conveniently masked by reference to the MRO, which will take the blame...for a price.

2) A good MRO marketing team will stroke, massage and titillate the Qantas Engineering Management team as far as is legally possible. They will also be on the lookout for any vices (gluttony, etc.) displayed by the managment team and attempt to satisfy them as well as far as is legally possible. This is an extremely pleasant situation for a manager to find themselves.

3) The Engineering management team will never become bored because of the tremendous and pleasant travel opportunities a good overseas MRO will continuously generate for them. These will include not only visits to the MRO's facilities, but an endless string of conferences, meetings and information sessions at stellar tourism locations.

Compared to sitting in an office close to a hangar and perhaps having to deal occasionally with people who have dirt under their fingernails, more real experience than you can ever hope for and who do not hang on your every word, outsourcing to an overseas MRO is a wet dream.*

*And yes, I've had it all tried on me at various times. I almost weakend when told by the outsourcer " We are having a conference in New York Two weeks from now and we really think it would be good for you to be there."

Flying Trades Person

13th Feb 2014, 20:58

Silverado
Plain language you do not need to post if it does not affect you so F**off

Silverado

14th Feb 2014, 00:42

FTP Thanks for that!

Considering that this is the first post and title of this thread

When is the next cull at QF Engineering?

Now that the non-event of the $6M profit has been announced as well as the flight re-shuffle, when is the next round of blood letting to begin?

Rumours are already rife that 200 will go in November, no doubt to coincide with the new schedule.

Uncle Chandra and his band of merry men are willing to take as much work from Australia as Tony and Chris will let him.

744 work will shift from SYD to BNE and 330s will be done wherever and whenever they land.

CAT A licencing is about to pick up and overtake all other training, tug drivers are also willing to hop on and fix an aircraft, because as QF sees them, most of them already have 2 years or more in the industry.

The changes in QF Engineering very much affect me!

SP's comment while true, doesn't present the facts, it's more scaremongering that I'd normally see from an internet troll.

TL and CN have 2 issues to contend with before they could offshore all Qantas maintenance;

1. The Qantas Sale Act

2. The fact that many Qantas aircraft don't leave the country, and all of them pass through Australia on a regular basis.

They can (and may) outsource all the Line maintenance. But the lions share of it will be done in Australia by people employed in Australia. It appears that there are many job losses and changes afoot in line and at least for the LAME population, if it's not LOFO then anyone without a 738, A330 or A380 licence can kiss their job at QF good bye.

Base maintenance on the other hand can be fully off shored, but again the QSA may hinder them at this stage. It looks from my perspective, that the Base maintenance changes will now settle for at least the medium term. (Its been very sad to see AVV and MEL go).

Clipped

14th Feb 2014, 03:17

There is one singular agenda on CN and TL's mind - break the union.

1. Cull LAME numbers, by the hundreds. Watch for AJ's announcement on the 27/2 and thereafter as they continue to seek efficiencies.
2. Beef up management (no expense spared here) - Ops managers, everywhere - WHY?, in this time of financial distress.
3. HR manager - Ex Senior Counsel of Freehills worked with Patricks on waterfront reforms (the scenario sounds very familiar).
4. Changes to maintenance planning. ie less work.
5. Cat A certifiers. And a contract workforce probably already in training, think, the Americas and Philippines.
6. Retiring of the legacy fleet, less work again, more LAMEs ... gone.
7. An onside LNP government demanding that the airline "get it's house in order", ie, attack their workplace conditions, with their blessing.

For those still standing expect an EBA negotiated on a one way street.

Rostering, redundant licenses, grade levels, customer type payments, penalty rates maybe even redundancy clauses are all up for the axing in one way or another. The airline has spent quite some time, resources and money gearing up for this 'war' whilst we go about doing a decent days work.

Are you getting the picture and that warm and fuzzy feeling that you're a valued employ? Hang on to your hats (and wallets) boys and girls coz these guys are out to shaft you.

And if you believe them, there will be a better and more prosperous QE at the end of all this.

Silverado

14th Feb 2014, 04:09

We all knew that the LAME workforce was going to be massacred, when the company agreed to the document that was rubber stamped by FWA as our Workplace Determination.

What amazes me is that Qantas didn't have the mettle to push through their IR agenda then. Most LAME's I talk to believe we got a better WD/EBA than we really wanted/expected. I suspect, for those LAME's that weather the storm, will again get an EBA that is considered reasonable.

If Qantas was offered Jetstar EBA terms and conditions by the ALAEA, I'm confident they would turn it down and we would end up with more of the same (albeit with a smaller and smaller LAME workforce).:ugh:

I put it to any manager reading this thread, that you don't have the balls to make any real changes to the EBA/WD. You will play hard ball during the protracted, so called negotiations and then fold and whimper away. With your only resolve to reduce the workforce further! You will be left with an EBA, that you will complain is unsustainable and you will be right. You will whinge about the ALAEA and take no responsibility for your failings! :D

Flying Trades Person

16th Feb 2014, 20:01

Silverado

A bit uptight SORRY

Bagus

16th Feb 2014, 23:08

Good luck to qantas one base policy heavy maintenance,next eba will be interesting negotiation.TL and CN time out.

Jethro Gibbs

18th Feb 2014, 06:47

In the wake of the Alcoa announcement today The Committee for Geelong claimed they are working with Avalon Qantas and Forstaff to transition staff and help them question is has anyone heard from them or even know who they are .:ugh:
Committee for Geelong - Committee for Geelong (http://www.committeeforgeelong.com.au/)

Sunfish

18th Feb 2014, 19:08

Bagus: Good luck to qantas one base policy heavy maintenance,next eba will be interesting negotiation.TL and CN time out.

The way Abbott and Co. are operating, there will be no negotiation next time. You will simply be told. Furthermore, the Labor Party won't come to your aid either.

empire4

19th Feb 2014, 10:31

Sunfish, in case you can't count, LABOR has been in power for the last 7 years. No one is to blame for this **** except Rudd, Gillard and their Labor party cronies. Then you add unions into the mix, work out that at places like QF, Alcoa etc un-skilled labour simply can't get paid $100K+++.

How hard is that to work out. Now everyone screams for Abbott to fix it in 3 months. Haha. It only going to get worse.

Arnold E

19th Feb 2014, 10:58

un-skilled labour simply can't get paid $100K+++

What unskilled labour is on $100k....Prove it
By the way, which unions are you talking about, the AMMA, the MMAA or perhaps AMA ?

Romulus

20th Feb 2014, 01:40

The way Abbott and Co. are operating, there will be no negotiation next time. You will simply be told. Furthermore, the Labor Party won't come to your aid either.

Really Sunny? I expected better from you. There is no need to be a LNP lickspittle, but basing your arguments on facts and logical outcomes would be a minimum I would expect from you.

Sunfish

20th Feb 2014, 03:33

Romulus:

Really Sunny? I expected better from you. There is no need to be a LNP lickspittle, but basing your arguments on facts and logical outcomes would be a minimum I would expect from you.

As you know I am a "natural" Liberal voter with faith in free markets.

What concerns me is that Abbot and Co. are from the hard right of the party and are friends of the miners and big Agriculture. Since they are "price takers" they see anything that increases their costs as anathema. That includes a thriving manufacturing sector which, by definition, increases the value of the Australian dollar.

To put that another way, Abbotss backers see themselves as the natural Aristocracy and dont mind seeing the rest of the country become peasantry. Similar forces are at work in Britain and of course the USA, all having taken a leaf out of the Russian Kleptocracy playbook.

To put that another way, the Abbott Government has no intention whatsoever of raising the living standards of average Australians, quite the reverse. The intention is to maximise the income differentials and marginalise and disenfranchise the poor. I would expect to see attempts at "voter ID" and similar laws in the second term.

To put that another way; the "personal responsibility" (ie: there is no social compact) mantra will be followed by the "choices" mantra (blaming the poor for their own circumstances). That will be followed by voter ID laws and an attack on compulsory voting if American Conservative thought is any guide.

Oh Yes! And gated communities to insulate the well off from the consequences of the policies they espouse.

Sorry to say I'm a "small l" liberal like Peter Costello, not an arsehole like Eric Abetz.

4 Holer

20th Feb 2014, 04:40

pull-up-terrain

20th Feb 2014, 04:52

It was reported in USA today a couple months back when GM withdrew from Australia. The guy's on GM/Holden production line screwing in the seatbelt bolts etc were on AUD $110K with a lot of vacation and extra days off. That's an example.

I know there were employees at holden earning >$100k, but i was certain that was management, not the frontline workers that the media made it out to be.

Its just like Qantas Management told the media that supposedly some LAME's at QF are on >$200K and some A380 Captains are on $500k and some CSM's are on $150k, its just a load of bull**** and even if it was true, they would have to have worked an absolute ridiculous amount of overtime. I dare say it would be the same scenario at holden.

4 Holer

20th Feb 2014, 04:57

OK , just relaying what was written..............

empire4

20th Feb 2014, 06:52

I would love to see a 20+ year LAME scan their current payslip, cover all identifying items and post on here…………….

waiting……………..

Didn't think so.

chockchucker

20th Feb 2014, 07:26

You first empire!

No?

Didn't think so.

Ngineer

20th Feb 2014, 08:01

I would love to see a 20+ year LAME scan their current payslip, cover all identifying items and post on here…………….

I personally would not. I have little respect for those who flash their payslips around, and I doubt too many would (let alone post it on a public forum).

If you were to consult the Licensed Engineers award I am sure you would find all that you need to know. If I hazard to guess, I might say I am in the vicinity of $50ph to keep the public (and my employer's property) taking off and landing safely and in one piece. I know garbage truck drivers who claim to earn more.

V-Jet

20th Feb 2014, 09:34

Payslips are irrelevant unless a company needs the info.

What I can tell you after running a number of small businesses is that the CEO earns less than just about anyone. And that is because the CEO understands everyone's job (and can usually do it better themselves) and values future growth, but more importantly SERIOUSLY values every single minute of work that people do. Because he/she has done it themselves. That to me, is the principle difference between small and large businesses.

It's the guy who buys that company that doesn't get the value.

I am a net employer and believe me, in this country we need lower wages for non skilled work. I'm talking plate cleaners on Sunday or after 6pm on weekdays (even if they only work those hours each week) legally getting $60++per hour. And no, I am NOT kidding.

What pisses me off to the point of not caring is that people like you guys kept Qantas aircraft the safest in the world so I could feel proud to be Australian, then these cretins come in to run the place who think you are worth less than a person whose qualifications are that they (usually) turn up on time and can spread flora on a slice of bread.

This govt is all about attacking that ludicrous state of play, but unfortunately we are all falling foul of the QF lies. Spread from (make no mistake) dearest Livvie's lips through the mouth of that slimey pole climber Howes.

For seriously educated 'workers' like you and I - we are nothing but collateral damage.

Whenever I speak to parliament people (and I do) I tell them exactly what is what. And they listen. But it's scales of justice thing, wins v losses. We just don't have the pull with 'the masses'.

AEROMEDIC

20th Feb 2014, 10:07

Sorry to say I'm a "small l" liberal like Peter Costello, not an arsehole like Eric Abetz.

Strong words Sunny, and I think I prefer Costello over Abetz too, but the comment doesn't sound like your usual "in depth" post.
To borrow your oft used phrase, to put that another way, does your statement only serve as a political comment from the left liberals about the far right or was there more to say and I've missed it?
One mantra you missed though,was "we have a mandate from the voters" and will quote this when justifying a shift from stated policy for example, an action not confined to the Libs ("no GST") with Labor("no carbon tax") as guilty.

Romulus

20th Feb 2014, 10:50

Peter "Dollar Sweets" Costello is most certainly NOT small "L" Liberal.

Malcolm Turnbull possibly, but certainly not Costello.

As for the rest, well, I think I'll leave you to that.

CAR42ZE

21st Feb 2014, 04:01

No one is to blame for this **** except Rudd, Gillard and their Labor party cronies. Then you add unions into the mix, work out that at places like QF, Alcoa etc un-skilled labour simply can't get paid $100K+++.

AND

I would love to see a 20+ year LAME scan their current payslip, cover all identifying items and post on here…………….

waiting……………..

Didn't think so.

I hope you're an engineer too Empire4! Because you're just bagging out LAMEs saying they are unskilled labour not worth more than a mythical $100K. So $99K you'd be happy with and $101K would be the sky falling? 6 figures is never to be crossed by the great unwashed chock throwers?

Anyway, EBAs are easily available on the fwc website. Why post payslips when the proper info can be found in a flash?

Workers Perspective

21st Feb 2014, 04:16

Let's not forget that Alan Joyce on his $3.3 million package equates to $1670 per hour. :}

chockchucker

25th Feb 2014, 00:55

According to the AFR Melbourne and Adelaide Line Maintenance look set to be completely gutted.

On top of all the redundancies at AVV, QF HEAVY TULLA, JHAS and now QF Line Maint. Victoria looks to become an aviation maintenance wasteland....

ENGINEERS BRACE FOR CUTS
Qantas engineers are bracing for heavy cuts in the line maintenance bases at Melbourne and Adelaide, said Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers’ Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas.

“I know there are going to be changes in engineering,” he said on Tuesday. “[Engineering managers] have been running a series of roadshows telling employees to brace themselves.”

Mr Purvinas said Qantas was now referring to a “golden triangle” of maintenance in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.

“We think the ports not included in that will be hit hardest,” he said, referring to Melbourne and Adelaide.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce will hold a meeting with union leaders on Friday but Mr Purvinas said the ALAEA would not participate.

“We don’t see the need to talk to him, because the things he says aren’t part of reality,” Mr Purvinas said.

After the results announcement on Thursday, Qantas Domestic chief executive Lyell Strambi and Qantas International chief executive Simon Hickey will answer questions from staff at a town hall meeting at the airline’s Mascot headquarters.

CAR42ZE

25th Feb 2014, 01:48

Fed Sec, other than the understanding that Alan will be talking nonsense on Friday, is there another reason for non-attendance?

Sure, you might believe it is a waste of time - but what about those LAMEs throughout Australia (and the world) who are paying their union dues, surely they would at least find solace that you at least went for a coffee on Friday and were there to represent them. Where else are the LAMEs going to turn to get proper information that hasn't been put through the Qantas miss-info system?

You've got the skills and knowledge to cut through the chaff and see things for what they really are - but not from a distance, you need to go and at least listen, then let the troops know your thoughts straight from the horses mouth - not through runout and speculation.

It just seems odd that a union isn't going to a meeting because they think the CEO is on another planet... I thought it's fairly normal there will be differences of opinion. Even if you think Alan is crazy as a coconut, the public announcement via the media screams of a pouting child.

AEROMEDIC

25th Feb 2014, 02:11

Yes, I agree, even if it's just to come back and say "I told you so".
If you don't go, get Paul Cousins to go and report back.
Your members can do with a reminder of how devisive these guys can be.

Suck&Blow

25th Feb 2014, 02:11

Here here CAR42ZE!!

Flying Trades Person

25th Feb 2014, 16:54

Not long now !!!!!

ALAEA Fed Sec

25th Feb 2014, 19:09

I am due to explain this decision about not attending a meeting with Mr Joyce on Friday in an email to members today. So far it reads -

ALAEA not Meeting with CEO on Friday

We’ve been to enough of these meetings to know that it will be a waste of time. They will show the same presentation that is released to the stock exchange, ask if we have any questions and then never answer one of them directly. No new information would be forthcoming. Additionally the ACTU people who know nothing about Aviation will take the lead making irrelevant points and limiting what we could say for the sake of harmony. The ACTU would most likely form a position on our behalf backed by big unions with a handful of Qantas members that would lock us into a position that would be to the detriment of our members. We need to conduct our consultation in different forums free from ACTU influence.

If we were present at the Friday meeting it also would mean that every union was present. If that was the case it would allow Qantas to make public comments about “all the unions understanding our issues”. There needs to be one union absent to prevent allowance of these erroneous comments and that will be us.

blubak

25th Feb 2014, 20:37

Steve,when you mention that your belief is that adl & mel will be hardest hit-have you any idea as to what percentage of workforce you are referring to?

Sunfish

25th Feb 2014, 21:00

Qantas is going back to its roots - Sydney.

Sunfish

25th Feb 2014, 21:01

Qantas is going back to its roots - Sydney. The VIctorian and South Australian Governments should ban public servants from using Qantas for duty travel.

ALAEA Fed Sec

25th Feb 2014, 21:41

The comment about the golden triangle was straight from management feedback meetings over the last couple of weeks. No idea what the impact will be though.

SpannerTwister

26th Feb 2014, 23:28

Saw SP on News 24:D :D, you need a shave digger! :ooh:

Gave figure of number of LAME to go with indication of mix.

Unfortuntly I missed the details, anyone get them?

ST

CoolB1Banana

26th Feb 2014, 23:30

Just give us the redundancy numbers for each section :ugh:

going postal

26th Feb 2014, 23:35

175 lames from LMO

griffin one

27th Feb 2014, 00:13

Numbers
83 SAM
31 SIO
38 Moving from SDO to SAM
16 Support shops

Plus the remaining 15 not already redundant from last year.

Good luck everyone there is only one job that really needs to go
But also about 14 operations managers who add no value.

Bootstrap1

27th Feb 2014, 00:33

Are these numbers LAMEs only or a mix of both?

blackbook

27th Feb 2014, 00:36

Tony Lowery quote
As a result of these decisions, it is likely that up to 300 positions will be affected.

QFBUSBOY

27th Feb 2014, 01:38

Looks like Sydney took the biggest hit today. Not good news in MEL or ADL either. Any JQ engineering staff to be made redundant as part of the 5000 losses from the Group.

sys 4

27th Feb 2014, 02:23

Jetstar engineering is safe,in fact they are looking for engineers

Oakape

27th Feb 2014, 02:25

Jetstar engineering is safe,in fact they are looking for engineers

Isn't that the plan? Transfer the labour to JetStar & have them on JetStar T & C's.

Silverado

27th Feb 2014, 02:29

Isn't that the plan? Transfer the labour to JetStar & have them on JetStar T & C's.

I'd love the pay rise, when do I start?

KrispyKreme

27th Feb 2014, 03:39

I think i remember AJ saying he is employing apprentices and continuing to invest in Australian Jobs, well what a load of BS that is.... I believe they just gave them a few jobs even though they are sacking people!!

CoolB1Banana

27th Feb 2014, 04:53

67 LAMEs from Base Sevicing. That's all the legacy crews LAMEs in one fowl swoop!!!

blubak

27th Feb 2014, 05:14

I am completely bewildered(not that i wasnt before) after hearing that the guys who have already applied for redundancy now have to apply again.Even if there are a few a380 or a330 licences in there,isnt the number1 aim now to reduce costs & preserve jobs of those that want to stay-lets get over this ongoing sage of excuses i.e.operational requirements.
There are plenty of options to cover the loss of a few licences,let the guys go quickly that want to go & then look at new applications for redundancy or transfers to other bases,there are plenty of managers in each base now to work out licence coverage & reorganisation of crews if that is whats needed,time for clear & concise action & put all this to rest as quickly as possible for the good of everyone.:ugh:

Workers Perspective

27th Feb 2014, 05:54

Big payouts will be required for the legacy Lames.

Small payouts will be required for the Neo Lames.

Annulus Filler

27th Feb 2014, 07:38

300 Engineers from 5000 to go. Where are the other 4700 going to come from? One is way too many.

chockchucker

27th Feb 2014, 08:17

58 LAME's to go from Melbourne LMO.

20 from Adelaide.

......And if we're realistic, that's just this round.

Even if one is lucky enough to survive this round there is more in the pipeline after R&D is handed over to the bag snatchers.

GoldenTriangle

27th Feb 2014, 08:51

tech services to go from 278 down to 200.

Bagus

27th Feb 2014, 09:40

AJ vs 54 unions.who wins

Bagus

27th Feb 2014, 09:46

AJ wanted to protect 35000 jobs,six months later 32000 now 27000 jobs ,very soon 21000 jobs by 2017 only 1 job.

Boeing buster

27th Feb 2014, 23:05

Hi all
This is website has a petition to sack Joyce. I never signed the QF one because it was about offshoring jobs not raising foreign capital.
Let's get behind it and give the QF media team another headache. The link appeared in an earlier page of this thread.
Let the little slime ball know he can't fool everyone.
Come on do it for Qantas
Cheers
Boeing Buster

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-qantas-airways-limited-board-of-directors-sack-qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-2#

mickjoebill

27th Feb 2014, 23:13

AEROMEDIC

28th Feb 2014, 00:57

Financial pundit Marcus Padley is gunning for J. Went out of his way this morning to say J has been in the job 5 years and doesn't expect he will make it 6.
Says that J was wrong man for the job as he lacks political touch unlike (as an example) Lord King.

Described his behaviour in shutting Qantas down last year as 'angry man' syndrome which alienated him from Canberra

All this is expected from analysts who were interestingly silent in the lead up to the report. Everyone of them were reluctant to make meaningful comment nor take any meaningful action on behalf of their clients. It's been "Yes, knew that" or " .....saw this coming" or even supported the board's strategy having swallowed the "spin" hook, line and sinker.
None, of which I am aware, have even approached the board for comment to the obvious questions on performance, strategy or responsibility.
Even more disappointing, was question time after the presentation of the report. It was weak and seemed as though there were only cadet journos present instead of hardened veterans.
Are the investment and hedge fund managers just waiting for a takeover opportunity to rape and pillage the company now while it is vulnerable?
We'll have to wait to see.

CoolB1Banana

28th Feb 2014, 02:05

Fed Sec, is there going to be another EOI for VR opening up soon?
The last EOI closed on 18 Feb for 'early March' departure.

CoolB1Banana

28th Feb 2014, 03:00

I just spoke to a mate with AMSA in Brissy and he said they have been asked to tender for some of the QF receipt/dispatch work in SYD. They are looking for more guys in SYD. CASR-66 or SAR-66 B1 fundamentals minimum.

buttmonkey1

28th Feb 2014, 06:43

These same pesky legacy folk who did the work to pay for Jetstars creation,
and all the ill-fated franchises in redq, Vietnam, Hongkong, Japan, barely floating
jetsar asia and jitconnect type operations, a list that goes on and on.
This legacy **** still breathes, kill what routes were not gifted to Jetstar and
get rid of their capacity. Fcuking ungrateful legacy airline holding the company back,
and causing this damned 65% war game of death.
Tony might think joyce is a genius, but it's time to go get a reality pill.

Clipped

28th Feb 2014, 07:20

CoolB1

Reform on the tarmac. Texas Tony will be looking to farm out 744 turnarounds. AMSA and JHAS in the mix to take on the work.

Plenty, plenty of pain to come.

Company, to attending Unions, would not divulge where ALL of the 5000 will exactly come from, code, they will dismember the LAME population down the track. Numbers will be continually culled and they will say you were always part of the initial 5000.

It may be 300 now. It will be a lot more over time.

Bootstrap1

28th Feb 2014, 07:30

I doubt JHAS are in the mix, I thought they are just about fold.

Isn't AMSA full of strike breakers? They have come full circle.

Jethro Gibbs

28th Feb 2014, 09:50

Tonight's news Denis Napthine promised help for all the Victorian Qantas workers and as the Avalon guys are included in these latest numbers one must wonder what he has done for any of them so far.:ugh::mad:

ALAEA Fed Sec

28th Feb 2014, 10:22

Try and forget all the rumours guys. We meet with them 11.30 Monday.

CoolB1Banana

28th Feb 2014, 11:04

How many $multi-million towing incidents is that now in LAX?

I wonder if the pr1cks factor all that in when they tell us how much cheaper it is to get work done at Air-Nair.

Gas Bags

28th Feb 2014, 22:37

Just heard from a source that the 2 guys in CNS may have fallen on their sword. My understanding is the disposal of these two will go a long way to returning QF to profitability.

QFBUSBOY

1st Mar 2014, 07:35

Just heard the 300+ jobs being made redundant in Engineering at present are extra over the announced 5000.

This management team are a nice bunch, real assassins. I bet that won't make the SMH or Australian. AJ couldn't even give the real figure because it is most likely going to be an ongoing operation to cut down unionised staff.

BP2197

1st Mar 2014, 11:46

Welcome to the Asian Fusion. Your Thai or Chinese for dinner comes at a price. QE must compete to be sustainable, the ALAEA can but delay the inevitable, they can't beat it.

They would be do better to understand the great challenge of this century which is the economic convergence between east and west and realise that being massively productive is the only alternative. If the ALAEA's members are as bright and enthusiastic as I believe, they will do everything in their power to ensure that waste is driven from their business and they are as efficient as possible. The choice is yours.

CoolB1Banana

1st Mar 2014, 18:23

Word is, the way they came up with the redundancy numbers for Base Servicing was: anyone without 380, 330 or 738 that's not a leading hand is gone. The list is already formulated and the union will just be told who is going. I just hope they do it fast so I can get on with my life.

Ngineer

1st Mar 2014, 20:49

Your Thai or Chinese for dinner comes at a price. QE must compete to be sustainable

Unfortunately you summed it up mate. There is a definate choice here, and the choice is safety or cheap. Unfortunately for the travelling public it appears the scales are being tipped.

When I go out (yes I do get out occassionally), I still get asked very often by friends and people who travel, which airlines are safe to fly. I was ofen told "I only fly with Q....s because they are the worlds safest airline",

Now, as you pointed out BP, it seems the playing field is becoming levelled in this area. I even sat in a feedback meeting and heard GH state that we don't have the monopoly on safety anymore. Other MRO's are as safe as us (whatever the motives were for such a statement is beside my point). Many of our aircraft get heavy checks done overseas by other MRO's. EASA has reduced the standards required to carry out work in Australia.

We were the safest because of the way things were done. That was a niche. Now that doesn't seem important. What I am hearing is we need to be on par.

So BP2197, when we are simply on par with the rest of the world in the way we treat maintenance, what edge do we have in attracting those who flew because of our safety?

Clipped

1st Mar 2014, 21:28

So BP2197, when we are simply on par with the rest of the world in the way we treat maintenance, what edge do we have in attracting those who flew because of our safety?

Management would counter with - those other airlines/MRO's are safe. Planes are not falling out of the sky.That is true. But you never hear about the number of incidents and delays whilst the aircraft is on the line. Well, how do they really do it?

Inspect and find nothing. AMM calls for a consumable, don't have it, no worries nobody will know. If you find something, ignore it. At all cost deliver the plane to the client on time for the right price. These MRO's do exactly that or the client will not come back.

Imagine holding up a plane for a couple of extra weeks for corrosion removal, chasing that hydraulic leak, just can't quite rig those ailerons, the annunciator that flickers intermittently etc etc etc. You take your car for it's 100K service, you get it back on time and for the agreed price OR you're rung up in the morning and told this and this and this have been found, parts not available for a couple of days and it will cost over a thousand bucks and at the moment your car cannot be driven ie unroadworthy. How would YOU feel. I've always wondered why the analogy is not used more often with the media.

That is the dilemma facing aircraft maintenance. When the dollar is almighty and the place is run by bankers, mathematicians, accountants and piss weak ex-LAMEs in management, too afraid to make a case for good engineering, then what choice do most airlines make? She'll be right. It's the minimum requirement. It's cost effective. It's worlds best practise.

How can you argue? But what about our reputation for world beating safety, reduced incidents etc ? Just doesn't cut it in this 'modern' world.

buttmonkey1

2nd Mar 2014, 16:30

The EOI from early December to mitigate Avalon and SAM CR's seems to be stalled pending the 300 redundancies in the big plan over 3 years.
Is the new one announced to move to BNE heavy or PER lmo the only option for the Avalon and SAM lames?
Too many eoi's to keep track of. Do these dicks actually have a timeframe for who from where is moving on.

CoolB1Banana

3rd Mar 2014, 21:09

To all you guys from Sydney International and Domestic that find yourselves being transferred to Base Servicing, take my advice. Don't bleat and moan about having to slum it over in the hangars like some have in the past. Just be happy to have a job and remember that other guys have been made redundant to make room for you there. Steve and the rest of the guys at the association will have their hands full saving jobs and don't want to deal with people upset about having to change to a different smoko room!

The Bungeyed Bandit

3rd Mar 2014, 22:19

Agree!!! What CoolB1Banana said!!!

Ngineer

4th Mar 2014, 06:35

guys have been made redundant to make room for you there

Guys have been made redundant to allow a poor business model to run without going bankrupt. Not the employees fault.

SIO and SDO losing their work to SAM. All employees are feeling the same pain.

CoolB1Banana

4th Mar 2014, 07:02

I think the guys being made redundant will feel considerably more pain buddy.

Ngineer

4th Mar 2014, 07:47

I think the guys being made redundant will feel considerably more pain

They will when it happens. There are redundancies in SIO and SDO also, they are being hit hard.

There is no disputing that whoever is made redundant will feel pain. That goes without saying.

I just find it objectionable if we start blaming each other for these redundancies. This is not the case, we are not at fault.

EWANQF

5th Mar 2014, 04:40

Hey FedSec.

During your meetings with QF management (CN/TL) can you find out how many of the "A" Licensed Engineers are part of the total redundancy numbers?.I'm guessing....................0.

stuntcock

5th Mar 2014, 06:27

"A personal message for QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce".

Check this you tube video out , this guy doesn't hold back , some of his info is a little wrong , but it's hilarious. I think he's pissed.:D

blubak

5th Mar 2014, 20:35

For anyone that may be interested there is a vacancy notice on seek.com.au for qatar airways,they will be in melbourne on 17,18 & 19 march,all details on seek.com.au,good luck to anyone interested.

VicVector

6th Mar 2014, 03:49

For anyone that may be interested there is a vacancy notice on seek.com.au for qatar airways,they will be in melbourne on 17,18 & 19 march,all details on seek.com.au,good luck to anyone interested.

Also Etihad have advertised for Engineers on SEEK.

Good luck everyone, hope things work out as well as they can.

I am quite sure my number is up. :(

CoolB1Banana

7th Mar 2014, 08:37

As a Servicing LAME, I fail to see how they can justify making me redundant when our department is becoming bigger. The way I see it, they are winding down the terminals to the demise of the guys in Servicing. It's unethical and would have to border on being unlawful. When they closed down Heavy Maint they didn't sack guys at the terminal to make way for Heavy guys. Obviously it comes down to licences but that doesn't make it particularly fair.

Lean Sigma

7th Mar 2014, 09:20

That being the case, all the ex heavy guys that came to servicing post heavy shutdown, should get the flick before any of the servicing guys. :hmm:

CoolB1Banana

7th Mar 2014, 09:37

I don't get your point.

griffin one

7th Mar 2014, 10:38

Joyce will win if the last two posts are anything to go by.
Stand together can't you see it's exactly why they want to divide and conquer.

ConcernedLAME

7th Mar 2014, 13:51

That's great logic Lean Sigma - sack all the LAMES with the most collective experience !

Spoken like a true Base Servicing guru ! Done an A Check lately ? Oh thats right that's all you do !

Don't get me wrong I don't like what is happening as much as the next bloke , but people's true colors come out when the ****e is about to go down .

Lean Sigma

7th Mar 2014, 15:48

How about keeping all the ex heavy Lames with the "most collective experience" and also save the terminal Lames at the expense of the servicing guys. That sounds more fair.

CoolB1Banana

7th Mar 2014, 20:04

Do you mean stand together Griffin? Sounds more like stand aside and make way for the terminal guys.

griffin one

7th Mar 2014, 22:37

Aren't we all LAMES ?
Whether domestic,international,base or heavy don't let this become a fight against each other.
Let the ALAEA deal with the process I'm sure Steve won't go down without a fight.

It's about time that the employees of QF marched on coward street and as for all the believers who voted on a level playing field guess you're realising now that you're just supporting lower t&c per the boards plans.

CoolB1Banana

7th Mar 2014, 23:13

Sounds like the quickest and fairest way to do it is to put everyone from Sydney in the same bucket and then it's last on first off no matter what licences you hold.

600ft-lb

7th Mar 2014, 23:17

The numbers point to Qantas wishing to make redundant LAME's with 'legacy' licences. Nothing to do with years of experience or terminal LAME's kicking out base maint LAME's with their licences. Qantas makes this decision, not the guys themselves being displaced. From a business point of view and the estimated $50-100k (whatever it is) company expense to train someone for a new type, why would Qantas make redundant people it can make use of in the new world ? Harsh but that's reality.

Perhaps it is time to look at something which would've made this a non issue in the first place. Base especially has had training severely curtailed in the last 10 years but it has been a nationwide trend. The provisions in the EBA for pay rises for each licence has had a negative overall impact on the staff development. An unintended consequence. Why are new licences still linked to pay rises ?

It might not have stopped redundancies but at least the guys being made redundant would've at least had qualifications that were useful in the outside world instead of a geriatric 767/747 licence.